Comments by The Wee Flea

1. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85163 by The Wee Flea on November 5, 2007 at 7:45 am

Is this Groundhog Day? Does Josh keep publishing the same joke ot see if he can get a more intelligent reaction? Has the flea concept not been done to death?

Perhaps I can make the following points in response:

1) Why does this thread not include the whoe swate of books that have been published on the back of Dawkins that are atheist? You do realise that there is a phenomenon called the New Atheist Publishing/
2) Do you really think that people like yours truely are in this for the money?
3) Ricey - are you really so naive as to think that this thread indicates the open mindedness of this website. It is an attempt at mockery and an accusation that those who respond to Dawkins are only in it for the money. Unless this is the atheist definition of open-mindedness?! And by the way I would recommend to my congregation that they are acquaint with the better atheist works (Sam Harris, Bertrand Russel and Flew before he 'converted' - I have yet to see ANYONE on this site recommend that any of the 'flea' books should be read - after all why should you? Without reading them you know what they will contain and you know that they are wrong!).
4) "you'd think that if the apologetics had a valid response, one book would suffice". Bizarre and stupid. You would think that if the anti-theists had a valid response to Christianity then only one book would suffice.

The rest of the thread provides the lie to the boast that this is a 'clear thinking oasis'.

2. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85162 by The Wee Flea on November 5, 2007 at 7:45 am

Is this Groundhog Day? Does Josh keep publishing the same joke ot see if he can get a more intelligent reaction? Has the flea concept not been done to death?

Perhaps I can make the following points in response:

1) Why does this thread not include the whoe swate of books that have been published on the back of Dawkins that are atheist? You do realise that there is a phenomenon called the New Atheist Publishing/
2) Do you really think that people like yours truely are in this for the money?
3) Ricey - are you really so naive as to think that this thread indicates the open mindedness of this website. It is an attempt at mockery and an accusation that those who respond to Dawkins are only in it for the money. Unless this is the atheist definition of open-mindedness?! And by the way I would recommend to my congregation that they are acquaint with the better atheist works (Sam Harris, Bertrand Russel and Flew before he 'converted' - I have yet to see ANYONE on this site recommend that any of the 'flea' books should be read - after all why should you? Without reading them you know what they will contain and you know that they are wrong!).
4) "you'd think that if the apologetics had a valid response, one book would suffice". Bizarre and stupid. You would think that if the anti-theists had a valid response to Christianity then only one book would suffice.

The rest of the thread provides the lie to the boast that this is a 'clear thinking oasis'.

3. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79619 by The Wee Flea on October 18, 2007 at 1:14 am

Having gloated a wee bit over the Lennox Dawkins debate I have to confess that this time it was our boy who 'took a hell of a beating'. Hitchins is an excellent debater and in my view wins this one hands down. He recognises a major weakness in Christian apologetics - we are all supposed to be 'nice' - so he employs his formidable wit and intellect to ridicule, challenge and provoke. In my view McGrath just cannot handle this.

Hitchins will of course delight the true believers here (in much the same way that Ken Ham delights his supporters) but, apart from ridicule, I don't really think he said all that much or made any real incisive in depth argument.

And what is it with these debates? Why is it that American Christian institutions seem to favour having 'a Professor from Oxford' and trying to be so 'civilised and nice'? In such a setting Hitchins will always wipe the floor with his oppenent. Its not a nice cosy firseside chat at an English tea party. It's war. Let him come to Scotland and we will give him a run for his money!

4. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #77846 by The Wee Flea on October 10, 2007 at 10:24 pm

The Guardian printed a critique of Venters work by a cell biologist from Cambridge. (Guardian 10th October). It pointed out that new life was not being created - that there was no benefit in what is being done, that the claims being made (ie. you could know the date of your death etc) were all false. In other words the whole thing was spin about something that is not that exciting after all.

My point (for Billy - who always seems to have difficulty getting the point) was simply that the linkage of science and capitalism is as dangerous as the linkage of science and the military. Still not sure what the Catholic Church and Benny Hinn have to do with either!

And my questions are also simple -

1) Why did this site post the original spin in the first place and not the refutation?

2) What does RD think? It is after all his field of expertise. Why did he not warn us about the false claims being made?

5. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #77061 by The Wee Flea on October 8, 2007 at 10:30 am

Where are the church officials actively seeking to confirm their beliefs scientifically? If they 'investigate' alleged miracles, do they do anything else constructive?

Of course if someone claims a miracle, insofar as it is possible we will investigate it. What is your point? We also examine history, science, philosophy etc.

My understanding of the article was that the teacher was not disciplined for teaching his religious views. He was allegedly disciplined for saying that the 'Adam and Eve' story is not literal. The theist students/school administration found this offensive and managed to have him 'disciplined' for merely suggesting the story isn't literal.

If your understanding is correct then I would completely agree with you. No teacher should be thrown out for their religious view or for expressing their opinion. However that is not quite what the story said – it appears as though he was teaching this – not expressing an opinon. Anyway I am glad that you disagree with those on this site who think that creationists should be banned from being science teachers!

I may be missing something, Steve, but could you let me know which theists use the elephant in the fridge argument? I have never come across one yet.

Then you have not looked very far, or are being deliberately ignorant. All the time we see posts and comments from theists saying that 'god has interfered with evolution, but in ways that can't be detected'. Personally, I think you know this but are lying.

Sorry Steve but I'm afraid that I don't know of a single theist who would use the elephant in the fridge argument. You claim it is a common argument used by theists so it should not be too hard for you to provide the empirical evidence for your statement. Simple question – name one theist who uses the elephant in the fridge argument as an argument for the existence of God.

I am proud that I share my feelings of morality and beauty with chimps, gorillas and orang-utangs.

So I presume you object to chimps, gorillas etc not being given human rights. Should they be in zoos, or experimented on, or should a human being have a right to go into a chimps territory? Should someone who kills a chimp be charged with murder? Personally I am proud that my feelings of morality are not shared with chimps and gorillas. (By the way how do you know what their feelings of morality are? Had any discussions recently on the nature of evil with a gorilla?).

I find it hard to express how angry this comment makes me. That you would use this as some kind of attack on atheists.

For you – and several other similar comments that follow. No – my comment was not an attack on atheists but a simple observation that compared with such an event (the death of a child) discussions about elephants in fridges is trivial – whether those discussions are by theists or atheists. I included myself in that remark. But you guys are so sensitive that you cannot consider the possibility of anything being outwith your own paradigm.

Just because we don't consider ourselves playthings of some higher being does not mean that we don't feel such losses deeply. Because we realise this is the only life have, it makes life even more precious to us, and NOT throwaway!

I agree with you. Of course atheists bleed too and are not the hard hearted caricature beloved of so many theists. However if you really believe that we are just 'throwaway survival machines' then I'm afraid that you are acting inconsistently with your own beliefs.

Seems to be that you have been reading the posts of a certain Dianelos. That's good - I have learnt a fair bit from him too.

Sorry Corylus. I have not been reading these posts – I just don't have the time. I don't even know who Dianelos is.

Is that truly what you think atheists believe? That simply because we believe in no gods, that we also conclude that people are no more than 'throwaway survival machines'?

How. Dare. You.

Rather easily. I was just quoting RD himself – Where he says in River out of Eden "We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. Our genes made us. We animals exist for their preservation and are nothing more than throwaway survival machines". I am delighted that you disagree with RD – but please do not shoot me for quoting him on his own website.

P.S. My deepest sympathies to the couple that have lost their child.

Thank you. It is appreciated. As it was their first child and the woman is 40 you can imagine that it was and remains traumatic. By the way it was not a miscarriage. The baby was born alive.

Specifically on the elephant argument: I'm not going there. I have covered exactly this ground, using different examples, on your website.

J - No – I don't think you have. I still want to know if you are prepared to seriously argue that you cannot disprove the invisible elephant in your fridge. I am actually at a complete loss to understand why everyone on this site seems to think it is such a killer argument.

And yes I understood the argument about the baby unicorn but it does not work because I am not claiming to have a baby unicorn

I suggest reading Hamlet instead of the bible once in a while.

Yes – I love it. As I do most of Shakespeare – but Hamlet is the best – perhaps because it is the Scottish play! And yes – I would love to visit Borders in Stockport (Leeds is about as close as I have got so far).

Name one positive assertion about our shared reality that an atheist accepts a priori or without evidence that you don't likewise accept.
Naturalism. The belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces work in the world.
You also believe that natural forces are at work in the world. So we have that in common. You just add a bit of God to the mix.

So you didn't answer my question actually.

Actually I did. Notice the word 'only'.

Gosh, nothing fails like prayer.

I bet the child's Heavenly Father did nothing while the earthly parents were frantically doing everything they could.

Speaking of cheap shots… (of course no howls of outrage from the rest of the faithful)..

More lies by the liar for Jesus.

Who argues that a proof that there is no God is that they don't have an elephant in their fridge?

Go to number 46 on this thread. You are very keen to claim that I am a liar.

Right. That's me with the Flea. No quarter will ever be given, not even in the interests of fair play; what an arrogant little shit. I now give myself carte blanche to attack him with ad hominem vitriol. How can you play the ball when the man is such a shit?

Sweet Veronique. Join the crowd.

CARR
SO you have to tell someone that a 'polluted' thing has just died?

You'll get over it.

After all that baby was polluted.

And yet another cheap shot. Yes I believe that all human beings are polluted – including myself. I also believe that all human beings are made in the image of God and are to be treated as special.

However, it does strike me that there are several Christians who are active on RD. net - Dianelos, of course, but also Biz, Revcort, Brother John, Fides et Ratio, Paul Emecz, Lane and others. Have you seen a single one of them EVER write approvingly or in support of Wee Flea's posts? No? No, nor have I. Why might that be, I wonder?

Not much of a point Northern Bright. I am not aware of any of these theists writing in support of one another (I have not read all the threads – has anyone?) but does that discredit their posts. Please try to stick to the subject. Don't waste your breath with the personal attacks.

(As an aside can anyone tell me why this website has not done a serious review – apart from calling us all fleas – of the various books written in response to TGD?)

I happen to know that reviews of a number of these books are underway right now. No doubt Wee Flea will read them with his customary open-mindedness, sense of fairness, and interest in genuine discussion.

Good – glad to hear it. About time. And I will read them.

I am continuing to read Wee Flea's book, The Dawkins Letters, and continuing to find page after page where he has shamelessly twisted and distorted what's in TGD, or has quite simply lied. As in this example:
The only argument I have heard atheists use is that, well, really, Stalin was not an atheist because he behaved unreasonably and unreasonable people cannot be atheists! It's the ultimate in circular arguments and there is no point in trying to break into the circle.

What's a lie about that? It's an argument that you guys often use. A version of it is that Stalin did not do what he did BECAUSE of his atheism (which may be true – although how you know that is to say the least questionable – its just something that you want to be true – and so it must be!).

Does anyone here really imagine for two bloody seconds that the Flea's 'just come back from the hospital scenario' has a grain of fact in it? I quite imagine that this is just one of his typical devices to try and pour scorn on us benighted atheists. He is not averse to simply making it up to score an imaginary point. In short, he is an arse if it is true or not.

Pewkatchoo - That manages to beat Carr's cheap shot. Sadly it was very true. It is even sadder that you make that kind of accusation without any evidence at all. And that despite the sick nature of the accusations not one of your sought fit to correct it. That is one difference between this site and most Christian sites I know – there is a level of self correction in most Christian message boards but here one rarely comes across that.

In terms of proof that I get my own personal morals from the Bible – let me give you one example. I believe it is wrong for me to sleep around with other women than my wife because the Bible indicates to me that monogamy is morally right. I cannot see any substantial reason for believing that other than the Bible.


Word of advice David - Under no circumstance tell your wife this. Ever.

Sorry Hippriest. I have told her and she has told me the same thing. We want a marriage that is based on reality, truth as well as feeling.

There was a time when the Bible said polygamy was morally right.

Perhaps Carr you could tell us where the Bible said that polygamy was morally right. It certainly recognized it happened but I am not aware of any text saying it was right. But perhaps you could enlighten us?

How the hell do you know that? If an elephant lacks visibility, it might also lack touchability, feelability, smellability and audibility, might it not? (I mean, look, your god lacks all of those things, doesn't it?) You seem to be making a hell of a lot of assumptions about the properties of this invisible elephant. On what basis?

I see Coel. So you are changing the argument. Not only is the elephant invisible but there is no physical aspect to it at all. Its not grey, it does not have a trunk, its not elephant size – so in what sense is it an elephant at all? None. So the point of your argument is that just because you cannot prove there is not a nothing in your fridge you cannot prove God! And this is supposed to be a website for clear thinkers!

Philip – sorry to have put you in with most of the posters. You are rarely guilty of those things. But then you rarely correct them either. As for Shakespeare and the Bible. Do you think you would have had Shakespeare without the Bible?

WeeF--"How is atheism a faith? Because you believe something based on your presuppostions which are themselves unproveable."

WRONG.. 100% Wrong, to be exact.

We do not BELIEVE "something". We DISbelieve something. And it isn't based on "presupposition". It is based on YOUR or any religions lack of proof.

You need to go a wee bit deeper. What do you call proof? Your idea of proof is based upon a naturalistic materialistic presuppostion (and you could throw in as well the presupposition that you are in the position of being able to judge any proof anyway).

Wrong again, Sparky. I'm willing to listen, if you have something new to say.. Problem is.. you don't. It's the same old tired, specious arguments that have been tried over and over again. You haven't the slightest bit of evidence for the existence of ANY deity, let alone yours..

Actually I doubt you are willing to listen to anything. You have your mind made up – so why should you let yourself be confused or upset by a different point of view? At the moment life is very simple for you. You know you are right – why you even know that you are open minded – if only the oppostion would provide proof. But the trouble is that you have already predetermined that anything that would or could proof God is automatically dismissed. So no, you have no intention to listen. And you have no intention to find out. You know – and whilst you might have a (thin) veneer of tolerance to those who do not see the Light, in reality your absolutism is as intolerant and potentially dangerous as any religious fundamentalism.

6. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #77034 by The Wee Flea on October 8, 2007 at 8:57 am

"He has further heightened the controversy surrounding his potential breakthrough by applying for a patent for the synthetic bacterium."

Why doesn't this come as a surprise? This is the same guy who tried to patent the human genome and who stated that one of his aims in life is to buy a yacht. The linkage of science and capitalism (aka Monsanto) is profoundly disturbing - and all true lovers of science and knowledge should be on their guard.

7. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #77032 by The Wee Flea on October 8, 2007 at 8:48 am

Other things being equal, people stay in the religion of their birth (and it was really smart of RD to figure that out at 9), but other things are not equal.

So the whole theory is blown apart but as you correctly point out – all things are not equal and there are a host of complicating and different factors. So the rather simplistic point made by RD and many others, that birth is the key factor is simply wrong. Thank you.

That Stalin was atheist is one claim, that his barbarism was motivated by Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, or the scientific Enlightenment in general, is quite another.

Agreed. Nothing is that simple. But Stalin became an atheist through reading Darwin. Something which I believe the Believers here would applaud. Arguing that this atheism was THE cause of his brutality would be a step too far (although again quite logical if one followed the logic of this website) – however it is at least clear that his atheist beliefs did nothing to stop his brutality. And he did set up an avowedly atheist society.

even if he was not well known in Oxford

Richard, was this intended as a putdown (along the line of the flea comment) or are you really saying that you are so enclosed in your own wee world that you are not aware of a Professor in your own University, who has written a book criticizing your own position, and one who is himself seriously interested in your own discipline 'the Public Understanding of Science'? And why, O why do you not take the time to remind your followers not to use such language as 'clown' when referring to your opponents? It does not do your cause any good.

You are on record as having stated that you believe natural disasters to be God's punishment for sin. This view is no less disgusting than the one that you cite.

Captain Underpants. No I am not. I am on record as having stated that the view that the Tsunami was God's punishment for sin is theological ignorance at best, and downright stupidity at worse. Please get your facts right and do not misrepresent me. You can find enough to criticize without lying!

Anybody interested in seeing what Bill Hamilton really said, rather than Wee Flea's wicked lies ,
can look at page 456 of Narrow Roads of Gene Land Vol. 2 (which Wee Flea calls an 'autobiography' with his usual carefree attitude to the truth)
Hamilton was claiming that modern medicine was wrong to tinker with human embyros, and that we might end up with a generation of people dependent upon medicine to stay alive.

Oh dear Steve. Please get your facts right before you accuse me of lying. Are you saying that the comments I made about Bill Hamilton are lies? All of them were taken from a review/obituary in The Times – none of this was disputed. No-one sued. No one wrote in saying that it was all lies. Bill Hamilton's views were extreme and racist. The same review stated that he once declared that genocide was the result of overbreeding and that he would grieve more for the death of one giant panda than he would for a 'hundred unknown Chinese'. By the way- given your take on it does this mean that Hamilton was opposed to embryo experimentation?

Checking back again, I note that Lennox was pushing the argument that atheism was behind Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc..
This is standard fundamentalist boilerplate and the argument has arisen sley because the Discovery Institute funded a book on the subject a few years back.

Paranoid nonsense. Stalin's atheism and Pol Pot's (and to a lesser extent Hitler's) has been clear for decades. It has nothing to do with the Discovery Institute. It is simple fact.

Lennox has done damage to my opinion of Oxford.

Of course he has. Because unless people agree with your point of view they should not be in a prestigious academic institution. But don't worry RD is running his campaign to get theology out of Oxford and soon we can all head to the Brave New World where only the doctrinally orthodox can get places in academic institutions.

Lennox clearly either has not read "God Delusion" or he does not remember a thing about what he did read.

It is this kind of comment which is really disturbing. Lennox has read and studied TGD – he knows what he read and in his book 'God's Undertaker – Has Science Buried God?' – he deals brilliantly with many of the points in it. I have noticed that this often occurs – an atheist comes on and says the critic of TGD 'has not really understood' or has forgotten and misrepresented TGD. It would be very helpful if you could say where this has occurred – rather than just giving blanket statements.

Either way, the Scientific method is clearly superior to these because its results are not subjective. Emotions and revelations happen only to those "specially chosen" few. This is not so with empirical evidence--it is laid out for all to see, to examine, and to draw conclusions about.

But the people who use that method and interpret it are subjective – and so they will all too often see what they want to see.

What worries me about the debate is that some of the Christian pundits will frame this as Dr. Lennox striking down Darwin.

Only if they are really stupid. Dr Lennox did not attach Darwin or his theory.

just tuned out Lennox when he was preaching.

Yep – I can see why you traveled four states to hear your hero. But do you really need to be so explicit that you refused even to hear, never mind consider the opposite point of view. To my mind this is yet another example of the atheistic fundamentalist mindset – which some (not the word) atheists have, and which you go mad about if I ever dare suggest it exists.

Isn't it our adherence to secular humanistic values that clearly and consistently defines our moral standards?

No. Because what are those secular humanistic values? Who defines them? Are they absolute? It does not appear to me that they are clear and consistent at all.

Stalinism was an abolutist doctrine. It made no appeal to the supernatural (as far as I know), and thus it was not a religion per se. But Stalinism did claim to have all the answers, and thus it allowed for no dissent. It also relied on logical waterproofing in the form of social constructivism, and declaring anyone who questioned it to be mentally ill.

Atheism is an absolutist doctrine. It makes no appeal to the supernatural as far as I know and thus is not a religion per se. But Atheism does claim to have all the answers, and thus it allows for no dissent. It also relies on logical waterproofing in the form of materialistic naturalism, and declares anyone who questions it to be deluded.

8. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #76947 by The Wee Flea on October 7, 2007 at 11:37 pm

Richard,

I have every sympathy with your complaint about being misrepresented, distorted etc. I have not yet read Cornwell's book (its on order) so I cannot comment on that. However the words, pot, kettle and black come to mind here. You constantly and deliberaretly misrepresent and distort the people and religions you are attacking, whether by ommission or commission. For example your use of Fred Phelps as representative of Christianity is dishonest and designed only to appeal to the prejudices of your hearers. There are numerous other examples.

One other comment to Jamerg - you wrote "Cornwell was simply totally misrepresenting things as RD's opinion (eg. Richard Dawkins thinks that any form of religion is the same as paedophilia). " That is not a misrepresentation. That is the impression that RD clearly gives in TGD and which any normal person reading it would get. Read the section entitled phyisical and mental abuse in chapter nine.

9. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76460 by The Wee Flea on October 6, 2007 at 12:14 am

Many thanks to this website for getting this on so quickly. It is really appreciated.

The comments are very revealing -

As regards Lennox - "Tripe, "I am not even going to try and dissect what was wrong with Lennox"; Lennox is a nut, stupid, refusing to listen because their jobs depend on it (quite how this applies to a Professor of Mathematics is not made clear!); best to shout 'you idiots, morons, stupid' (advice taken by more than a few fundie atheists); sophistry, spews nonsense, Lennox is an 'arsehole'; shoddy excuse of a scientist; a clown; "

As regards the debate itself "Biased format. Richard not used to that kind of audience. Not a debate an ambush; RD needs to brush up on his cosmology; a hostile forum (based upon the joke that Richard was there to announce his conversion in the Bible belt!)"

All of the above means simply, in the words of the Norwegian commentator describing his teams victory over England -"Your boy took a hell of a beating"! Which is why I will be getting the DVD and making it available to as many people as possible -- I suspect that not many atheists will be using this.

Personally I thought the format was awful - but I do not beleive the paranoid conspiracy theorists. Surely it was a format that RD agreed to? He would not be stupid enough to agree to participate in a debate without knowing the format.

The whole thing proved that,unlike Hitchins, RD is not a great debater and explains why he does not get involved in too many of these debates. To start with I was not that impressed with Lennox but when he got going I thought he was brilliant and wiped the floor with RD. His intelligence, scientific knowledge and awareness of RD's arguments were clear. The fact that RD was reduced to repeating the same old arguments clearly gave Lennox an advantage - because he knew what they were going to be!

For those who really want to interact with the debate can I suggest you read Lennox's "God's undertaker - has science buried God?. Just finished it and it is outstandingingly brilliant. providing clear evidence for theism (although not Christianity.

I think the most revealing part of the debate was the very end - with RD's emotive reaction to JL's summary. He could not hide his contempt. This debate is not about 'science, reason, truth etc'. It is about RD's (and many others) hatred of religion. Science is used as a weapon in this battle but when scientists like JL fight back the gloves come off and the real motivation and charcter of the New Atheism becomes clear.

As regards the comments obn this thread just a few thoughts.

Once again we observe the rather nice and cute self defence of the Emperors new clothes. We atheists are the rational logical ones. Anyone who disagrees with us cannot therefore be rational and logical, therefore no matter what they say we will not listen to them because we are the rational ones, they are stupid, which is proven by their not agreeing with the rational position – and so round and round the circular argument goes.

'onclusively answered in RD's book' – why not then answer them at the debate?

As to asking John Lennox to post here if he is interested in real debate. Why? I know him as well – and I would strongly suggest to him that the last thing he should do is post here in order to get real debate. Even the majority of posts on this thread (and I exclude the likes of J and Bonzai) work on the assumption he is a fool, hypocrite, idiot and self evidently wrong. You really do believe that you are smarter than other people because you are atheists. ( witness the hilarious remark that if we were all as smart as Hitchins religion would disappear!) How can he be expected to debate such ignorance and prejudice?

And once again the science/religion divide is taken as a given. Yet it is not. Perhaps Steve99, most people are atheists for emotional rather than scientific reasons? The response to this debate is evidence that for at least some people that statement is true.

As regards Stalin – read Montefiore's Young Stalin – which describes in detail his conversion to atheism through reading and being enlightened by the Origin of the Species.

As regards Korea – 200 years ago there were no Christians in Korea – now there are 45%. How does this square with RD's oft repeated assertion (which he worked out when he was 9!) that your religion is determined by your birth. If that were true then surely the Koreas would all still be Buddhist?


Blackhaw your points are valid, logical and empirically verifed on this website. However you should realize that one of the basic beliefs of the atheist creed is that atheists are not fundamentalists and that the reason they do not change their mind is because they know they are right. You will also find that every thing is reinterpreted within the very narrow paradigm of atheist thinking. Thus for example the illustration about spectactles. Dawkins hero (on which he based much of the selfish gene) was Bill Hamilton. Hamilton was a genius of a biologist but had some rather strange beliefs as a result of his science. For example he believed that modern medicine was doing harm because it allowed the weak to survive and thus preserved their genes. His two examples of this were caesarean sections and the glasses worn by John Maynard Smith! Incidentally he also believed that the handicapped should be killed at birth, that genocide was a result of overbreeding and that the only acceptable forms of modern medicine were painkillers and surgery!

10. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74561 by The Wee Flea on September 29, 2007 at 2:22 pm

NB thanks for the quotations. Althoiugh I should point out that one of them is Stephen Jay Gould and another is inaccurate – 'it is hoisted by your OWN petard'. But at least you have had the courtesy to read what I have written and therefore you have earned the right to comment. Actually I look forward to your comments. (As an aside can anyone tell me why this website has not done a serious review – apart from calling us all fleas – of the various books written in response to TGD?)

The description in the banner says 'A Clear-Thinking Oasis'. I don't think telling a room full of students that atheists don't believe in God because of Russel's teapot, is very clear-thinking.

Yes I think this site should be sued under the Trade descriptions act! I simply pointed out that on this website some think it is some kind of brilliant point that because they cannot prove they don't have an elephant in their fridge, this is somehow proving that there is no God.

You also say there is arrogance on this website. I would think the real arrogance comes from someone who thinks his imaginary friend is more real than all the thousands of others.

Ironically your second sentence demonstrates the truth of the first statement.

I am glad they were amused. But the 'elephant in the fridge' argument is a good one, precisely because it is the one used by theists.

I may be missing something, Steve, but could you let me know which theists use the elephant in the fridge argument? I have never come across one yet. I certainly do not believe in an invisible God elephant. And are you really sure that you can explain morality and beauty from evolution? Is it not he case that you start off with the conclusion (there must be some evolutionary non-religious explanation) and lo and behold, you end up with the result you are looking for anyway.

I'm glad you found some other children to share your unicorn with. I hope I never find myself relying on them to make any sort of responsible judgement about anything.

J, I thought you were meant to be the 'nice, tolerant' one. Why are you so dismissive of anyone who would dare to disagree with you? Why do they have to be children? And why do you think it is so difficult to disprove the invisible elephant in your fridge? If you cannot do so then you have undermined every good thing about your previous posts.

We faithless would be happy enough to bite our lips and let you get on with praising the god of your choice – no matter how implausible – if there was really no harm in it.Gosh, there are just so many examples of my fundamentalistic intolerance!

Yes actually that is. The statement is meaningless. The whole point that RD does his campaigns and that most people are here is precisely because you believe that it does harm. Of course you spend a lot of time writing very lengthy posts – and usually they are very interesting. But you are equally capabale of wondering off on many different tracts – and whilst you are outwardly polite on the Free Church website, at no time do you challenge the abuse, irrationality and hatred on this one. For me, actions speak louder than words.

It is very difficult to discuss with people who think that it is impossible to prove that there is not an invisible elephant in their fridge.
No it isn't, it is very easy. All you have to do is try. All you have to do is expound on your disproof of the fridge-bound invisible elephant in clear and logical steps. Can you do that? Are you here for debate, or just for insults and sneers?

Ok. An elephant is a certain size. My fridge is not big enough – even for a baby elephant. If an invisible elephant were in my fridge you would still be able to touch, feel, smell and hear it. Evidence of the elephant would be overwhelming. Unless of course you were the kind of person who did not accept evidence. And then we are arguing in wacko land – this is the Matrix not reality. This is the world of parallel universes and green moustaches – and no intelligent sane person who looked for empirical evidence would ever go there, would they?

David,
I too am deeply disappointed in you, you only have yourself to blame for it. I have seen the amazing kindness with which J has treated you with and you just threw it back at him.

Sorry to have disappointed you. I apologise for any offence and unnecessary hurt I have caused you.

Name one positive assertion about our shared reality that an atheist accepts a priori or without evidence that you don't likewise accept.

Naturalism. The belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces work in the world.

On the whole, everyone has made an effort to engage with you.

I guess you see what you want to see. With some honourable exceptions I would suggest that is not the case – unless (and this would not surprise me) you have a very different view of what engagement means. I accept fully that at times I am sarcastic, mocking and not the best advert for Christianity. However I would suggest to you that this website is not the best advert for atheism. The same arguments are repeated ad nauseum. No attempt to made to engage at all with any religious people – because they are de facto deluded, stupid or hypocritical.

I do not know if you will read this rather long-winded and rambling post. But if your next sets of responses are to claim "victimisation" and "persecution" rather than to actually engage with what is being said, then I will have lost a lot of respect for you.

Interesting. Every time I post on here – I get the same responses, whatever the subject. Usually dozens of posts asking (accusing?) on various subjects from Hitler to the Pope. Lots of posts telling me what I believe or making ridiculous comments about tiny churches in Scotland – all of which has nothing to do with the subject but all of which is intended to belittle and used as a kind of ad hominem. Foolishly I try and reply to some of them – and sometimes in kind – with the result that it shoots all over the place. For example this thread is supposed to be about a teacher who claims who he was thrown out of school for expressing his religious view. I asked a perfectly legitimate question – and do not get one response to that question. And then you have the nerve to accuse me of not engaging with what is being said! By the way does anyone have an answer for my question about Burma?

On the whole, the gaggle of atheists and agnostics that frequent this site are here to exchange ideas, and to talk with those believers that may stop by. If you are not interested in reasoned debate, perhaps you should go elsewhere, and if that makes me hostile, so be it.

Again – whilst there are exceptions to this I have not found this to be the case. And I would suggest that any neutral observer coming to this website would not find reasoned debate or the exchange of ideas – other than within the very narrow confines of the atheist ideology. The reason I use the term atheist fundamentalism is because this site has all the traits of a fundamentalist website – not least in the absolute certainty that you are right and that you are not fundamentalist.

The frightening aspect of this is seen in the language of both RD and Dr Benway. Religion is a virus. And people like me only ' seem human'. Such thinking will have severe consequences.

Anyway I am really tired of all this. Please feel free to post your pseudo psychology, sense of hurt, ludicrous biblical interpretations and pop philosophy to one another. You can all feel good that you belong to the One True Faith, you can mock me and other 'fundies'. If any of it begins to get home you can always claim it's not nice and, like good fundies, you can ask 'what would Jesus do'? Play all the games you want but maybe just once you could ask questions which are actually trying to elicit information – rather than just accuse.

I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died. Somehow elephants in fridges seem somewhat trivial. At least for those of us who believe that we are more than 'throwaway survival machines'.

I'm sure you won't object too much if I leave you to get on with things for a while. I'll check back in a week or so and see if there are any serious questions to answer. But I suspect you don't really want anyone else playing in your playground.

11. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74489 by The Wee Flea on September 29, 2007 at 5:48 am

My point is that your behaviour reflects badly on the ideology you represent and which you claim to be so superior. Suppose your god really did exist and really was watching and judging everything you did? Would you really want him to scrutinise your antics in here too closely? Would he approve of your methods, do you suppose?

Northern Bright. I'm not sure. I'll ask him and see what he says. I'm delighted that you think that behaviour (as reflected in language) is something that determines truth. What chance do you think that gives the atheist cause going by the vitriol, abuse and arrogance on this website?

So don't hand-wave away this 'elephant' argument. Either come up with a decent refutation of Russell's Teapot argument or be honest and admit there is a problem.

Steve 99 – I know that atheists like to repeat the same arguments (and even illustrations – like some Christians!) but surely you can see the difference between proving whether there is an elephant in your fridge – and the chocolate teapot – and by the way I could prove that there is not a chocolate teapot. It is very difficult to discuss with people who think that it is impossible to prove that there is not an invisible elephant in their fridge. I was speaking at Dundee University last night to over 100 students and they were highly amused that some atheists think that their inability to disprove the elephant in their fridge, is somehow a reason for not believing in God.

Oh, and exactly where did I attribute to you a quote that you hadn't said? Unlike you, I take such things seriously, and will retract and apologise if I've done so.

Try comment no. 63. I did not say nor use that one.

He doesn't make grandiose and unsubstantiated claims that his faith rests on anything more than his own personal feelings and choice.

J. I'm very disappointed in you. I thought that you despised the notion of people believing irrationally? Is that not the whole crux of your argument? Maybe you like C because he reinforces your prejudice about faith. If its only personal feelings and choice and that is to be commended, then perhaps you would say the same about your atheism? Is it just personal feelings and choice?

Russell was wrong that we couldn't prove if there was a mystical giantic teapot flying around the solar system. If his teapot is more than a "phantom" which has no attribute, it would leave some traces which we can discover.

At last! Some sense. And Bonzai ,can I thank you for the following discussion. It is very helpful. I also disagree about mathematics not being a science. Without maths there would be no science.

One look at the zombie hordes of people going to church on Sundays out of habit makes me think: Have they ever really examined what they believe? Most have not.

Fedlar. Why do you make this statement? It is nothing more than prejudice. You cannot possible know whether most people have examined their beliefs or not. Going by my own small experience (ie – ministering in a congregation for 21 years and being editor of my church's magazine) I would say that most Christians I know spend a great deal of time examining their beliefs. But I suspect it suits you to think that we are all a bunch of deluded non-thinkers and so, because it suits you, lo and behold it becomes 'fact'.

He really is a disgusting little weasel isn't he! It certainly validates my stance of simply ridiculing him every time. He will take whatever we say and use it against us anyway, but if he does, I suggest a class action lawsuit is possible. As I said before, the presbyterian church is responsible for holding my country back for hundreds of years. Wee Flea is just a typical example of a middle ages throwback. He does not love his god, he simply sees an opportunity for him to exert some influence on his community. It is power and status that he desires, nothing else.

Russell thanks. NB is this what you mean by an enlightened rationalist response? Call people names, threaten lawsuits, give a distorted view of history which would make Goebbels proud and then throw in a bit of amateur psychology! Yes – of course I desire power and status in 21st century Scotland by becoming a Free Church minister – either I am stupider than you think or you really do believe the fantasy world you inhabit.

Captain Underpants a few comments on your witty, incisive and stimulating contribution.

Reverend WeeWee is clearly at great pains to appear to be reasonable.

Thanks. Glad you noticed. It seems to have escaped the attention of some here.

WeeWee: Please excuse my ignorance regarding fairyological questions, my parents neglected to teach me fairyology.

No problem. Not quite sure what this has to do with what we are discussing. However if you want to discuss fairyology I am sure this is the site to do it.

Am I correct in understanding that Jesus is supposed to have been gentle, meek and mild? Would you say that these adjectives accurately describe your behaviour here?

No – you are not correcr. There was certainly gentleness and meekness. But there was also authority, power, anger, irony and warning. (eg when he threw the money changers out the temple). And no my behaviour is not as Christlike as it should be. I remain a sinner. But I appreciate your concern for my spiritual health.

I don't expect you to answer these question, but you will be seen not to answer them.

Guess I disappointed your expectations. Sorry. Maybe that was not Christlike either?


In all the above – what intrigues me is that noone has answered my original question and point. Why are you all getting so upset because a teacher was allegedly disciplined for seeking to teach his religious views in a secular school? If it were the other way round – if the teacher had been disciplined for teaching a biblical view in a secular school would you not all be shouting from the rooftops what a good thing that was? I would call that double standards.

Did you hear the one about the religious state that sent in the army to kill protesting atheist students and leaders? No? Well did you hear the one about the secular state which sent in troops to kill monks and other protesters? No? Not on this website. If the Burmese government had been religious and the protesters had been atheist then you can be certain that this website would have carried articles on it and numerous posters would have sent in the messages stating that this proved how evil religion was. But no – because they are a secular government and supported by the secular government of India and the atheist government of China, no a word is said.

Still maybe we can all get back to the really important issues – like a teacher in Des Moines who was suspended for seeking to indoctrinate children with his religious views, and finding out whether NB really does have problems with an elephant in her fridge.!

12. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73915 by The Wee Flea on September 26, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Nice avoidance Northern Bright. When you can't cope with the argument change it and then hit them really low - 'you can't really be a Christian because you're not nice and you don't fight fair!'

I disagree with you, use a wee bit of your own tactics (mockery etc) and all of a sudden this is considered 'venting spleen' etc. The kind of thing which is so horrific that if my congregation could see it then they would desert in droves! Meanwhile those who swear, abuse and yell at anyone who dares to question the atheist faith (sorry atheist truth, rationality ad obvious self evident brilliance!) are lauded as examples of tolerance and 'clear thinking'. You will forgive me if I leave the sackcloth and ashes until later.

And I love the idea that you think this message board exhibits the desire to have rational discussion and to hear different points of view. With honourable exceptions (and actually you are usually one of them) there is very little of that about. How can it be? When you consider that only those who are atheists can be rational? How can you have rational discussion with the deluded?

Meanwhile let me go back to the original point that you were making. If you seriously cannot prove that there is not an invisible elephant in your fridge then yes, there is no way I could ever offer you proof that there is a God. I cannot deal with such irrationality. The fact that you all seem to think this is a serious point that someone backs up your philosophy is extraordinary. However it does give me further empirical evidence of the irrationality of the atheist faith. I have just got back from Borders in Leeds and would love to have been able to use the argument that atheists cannot prove they do not have invisible elephants in their fridge! Still there is always Borders in Brimingham.....

By the way my proof is listed at the end of my book. But I can guarantee it will in no way be considered proof by the fridge elephant atheists!

PS Coel - please don't attribute quotes to me that I did not use.

13. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73828 by The Wee Flea on September 26, 2007 at 9:43 am

'Northern Bright'

If you cannot prove that there is not an invisible elephant in your fridge then I'm afraid I cannot argue with you. I CAN prove there is not an invisible elephant in my fridge. Which kind of blows the rest of your argument. Still doubtless J and others will continue to regard this as brilliant logic because one of the sweeter rules of atheist fundamentalism is that one must not disagree with ones fellow believers in public.

And I love the somewhat touching faith you espouse in your belief that people on this site have not come to their atheism by personal experience. Much of what I hear is personal experience, feeling and prejudice. The 'facts' are then selected to fit what people want to believe.

But you are right. It is going to be VERY difficult to prove God to someone who cannot prove that an invisible elephant is not in their fridge!

14. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73700 by The Wee Flea on September 25, 2007 at 11:11 pm

How is atheism a faith? Because you believe something based on your presuppostions which are themselves unproveable. In the fundamentalist version of your faith you refuse to listen to any other point of view.

15. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73699 by The Wee Flea on September 25, 2007 at 11:10 pm

Quine - no problem. Let me mention just some of the verses you cite - out of context and ignorantly. More than happy to enlighten - although I suspect that enlightenment is not what you are looking for.

Lev 1:9 - no longer applies because we no longer have animal sacrifice because Christ was sacrificed for us.

Exodus 21:7 deals with an economic system that no longer applies. Although having said that people still sell themselves as wage slaves and the capitalist system still encourages a form of slavery. Exodus 21:7 dealt with a system that was already there - not with the ideal.

Lev.15:19- 24. teaches about ceremonial uncleaness - as does the pasage abut men with an emission of semen. The ceremonial laws no longer apply, the temple having been done away with, and the ceremonial law replaced by Christ.

Lev. 25:44 - does not apply to you as you are not part of the anceint theocratic state of Israel and you do not live in those times. The verse says nothing about owning slaves today.

Exodus 35:2 - ditto above.

Lev. 11:10 - ditto above.

Lev. 21:20 - there is no altar so thats not your problem.

Lev. 19:27. How should they die? By plucking out their remaining hairs one by one!

Lev. 11:6-8 - ditto above

Lev. 19:19 - ditto above.

Your attempt to be a smart alex and to ignore context, genre and culture is a spectactualr failure for anyone who knows how to read.

16. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73385 by The Wee Flea on September 24, 2007 at 11:10 pm

Forgive me asking - but I thought that American state schools were meant to be non-religious and that you guys were all for this. Why then would you want to support a man who teaches his own religion? Is it really the case that the Hebrew God ison the same plane as any other god? That is certainly not what the Hebrew Scriptures teach. It is the religious view of the teacher. Why should he be entitled to impose that upon the students? Is this not brainwashing? Or is it really the case that when you say you want schools to be 'neutral' over religion, you really mean that you want your philosophy, ideology and viewpoint to be taught - and all others to be suppressed? You follow such a tolerant faith!

By the way -
Quine,

The old ones are the best ones! A version of this has been going the round for several years and is doubtless considered the height of with and wisdom by those of the atheist faith. It is of course never written with the intention of getting an answer. Who needs answers when you already know that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

17. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73384 by The Wee Flea on September 24, 2007 at 10:59 pm

"The religious cannot brook contradiction, that is the engine of confrontation."

- This is a stroke of pure genius. Let anyone contradict the Atheist creed or even dare to question, as in the above article, the tactics and wisdom of the Teacher/Prophet/Special One, and the dogs of war are let loose. Not only are the same 'arguments' used but the language is abusive, cheap and confrontational. Ironically the comments in this thread provide plenty evidence for what the author is claiming. It is the fundamentalist atheists who cannot brook contradiction and who rejoice in contradiction. And yes - I have read The God Delusion (several times) and yes it does claim that religious moderates are the ones to blame because they are the ones who allow religious fundamentalists. That is almost as ridiculous as saying we are to blame for the atheist fundamentalists!

18. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69636 by The Wee Flea on September 12, 2007 at 2:10 am

193. 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. No it doesn't.

Dinah. You need to stick with the thread and be a little consistent. I did not say any such thing. It is this site, RD's own site, which has seen fit to label anyone who dares to respond to him as 'a flea' seeking to make money off his back. It is the height of self important arrogance and hypocrisy - from someone who will have made a fortune from his plagarism of old attacks on Christianity. I personally don't think that RD does it for the money - but it is breathtakng arrogance to imply that those of us who respond to him are just trying to make money.

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!

So that means that RD is not fit to comment on geology, cosmology, theology, history, politics, philosophy. That kind of wipes out TGD! And you do not regard McGarth's PhD in biology from Oxford as being relevant?!

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

Nope.

Where you make an error, in suggesting that writing and promoting a book like "The God Delusion" is the same as later writing and promoting a book such as "The Dawkins Delusion" is in failing to realise that the authors of the responding books have, for the most part, written their books only because of (and following) the success of the former.

No error at all. Where YOU make the error is in not realising that RD et all are only responding following the success of the religious books - especially the Bible. That does not invalidate their response - any more than my responding to their response is automatically invalidated.

There may be numerous motivations for this, but were TGD a small print run book only read by a few academics then the other books would not have been written, and the writers would not have been able to persuade publishers to front up for their printing and distribution.

'front up'. I wrote the responses to TGD with no intention of publication. I was then asked about turning them into book form. There was no advance, no advertising and no publicity. And yet somehow it has managed to sell out twice and is currently being reprinted. What is most gratifying is that there are a significant number of atheists/agnostics who are apparently reading it. Indeed I met with one last night who said that he was actually persuaded by some of them and would like to have faith. Interesting....

"Look how high we have reached!" shouts the flea as it stands on the outstretched trunk of the elephant, who is quite unaware of its existence.

How nice to have reached such certainty. Such wisdom. Such knowledge. If only the rest of the human race could catch up and be as humble as you!

However, in making out that the contributors to this board are in many ways flawed, (I include myself), David Robertson has been very careful not to put his own point of view. I.e. belief in the supernatural, Jesus being the Son of God and our Saviour, and all the other gobbledegook pedalled by the Christian religions, of which the wee free church is a miniscule part, but quite strong in Scotland.

So, please David, take advantage of Richard Dawkins' largesse, and put your point of view here. You never know, you might make a convert. Put all us ignorant sinners right!

I don't know. I remember something Jesus said about casting your pearls before swine...If you really want to know what I believe - get the book. But here is the shorthand summary. I believe In God the Father, creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son.....(see the rest of the apostles creed). When you are seriously ready to discuss get back to me.

What's the feedback been like from the flock? Do you know of many who've read the whole discussion?

Initially J's posts were well received but more recently they have been so long that I think most people have just given up. From my perspective he writes well, and with a measured tone of respect, which certainly aids his argument.

19. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

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.

20. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

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…

21. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67048 by The Wee Flea on September 1, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Forgive my intrusion. I cannot comment on Cornwell's book as I have not read it - however the review does not really encourage me to do so. Whilst I may agree with many of the criticisms that Cornwell makes of The God Delusion I have two major obections to the review.

1) It is quite wrong to suggest that The God Delusion is 'self aggrandisment'. Anyone who has actually read it will know that is not the case. Indeed there is a considerable amount of self deprecation within it.

2) I find the review itself quite intellectually bankrupt. Angels as 'symbols for the formless elements of phyisics'? What does that mean?

I wonder why the Times choose books like this, and reviewers like this?

22. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63450 by The Wee Flea on August 14, 2007 at 11:58 am

I have to agree COMPLETELY with Richard's post and his suggested course of action. Indeed I will be visiting my MP tomorrow (his office is just down the road from my church). This is not about being anti-Islam (although if you think it is wrong I don't see any problem with that) but it is about waking up to the enormous danger that the head in the sand attitude of the British government towards extremist religion is leading us.

Let me give another example. I know a chaplain involved in a prison who has been compelled to resign because the new chaplain (a muslim) is doing his best to indoctrinate the prisoners and to use his power (which is considerably more than any chaplain has ever had before) to give advantages to Muslims. The muslim chaplain concerned is hailed as a kind of hero by new Labour and is likely to end up being appointed a peer. The trouble is that no-one is allowed to criticise him or to question what he is doing without being accused of being Islamaphobic or racist. And the bureaucrats who largely run our country are generally spineless and want to play things by 'the book' rather than question what is going on. The danger is that by so doing they feed both the Islamic extremists and the racists.

I find it almost unbelievable that the CPS were threatening to prosecute Channel 4 over this. They might as well have prosecuted Richard for his 'Root of all Evil' programme - which one could have argued was Christophobic (if you wished to be really pathetic)- of course they would not do so because Christians don't kill those who disagree with them! (And yes the exceptions do prove the rule!). If a relgious faith cannot stand up to a robust critique then it is not much of a faith.

23. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63443 by The Wee Flea on August 14, 2007 at 6:58 am

Trying to stick to the subject in hand let me suggest that the reason the police got involved in this, has nothing to do with religion and their respect for religion, but the ridiculous and PC notion that to be against a particular religion (or even to criticise) it somehow to be racist. I regard this as a tremendous threat to the 'liberal' (and I would say Christian!) values of our society. I may not agree with what you say but I would defend to the death your right to say it. The fact that a balanced and couragous documentary such as this is threatened with police action shows how much we need to be beware of those who want to use the racist tag to silence all criticism of religion (or at least criticism of religions which threaten to kill those who disagree with them).

David

PS. When I wrote my second post I had initially written after the first sentence - so please leave the questions about the Pope, Billy. But then I removed that because it was facetious and I thought silly. Not even Billy would manage to bring the Pope into a discussion about this wonderful documentary! I was wrong (again!). All questions on the Pope etc will be answered (as they have been) once again on the other threads - when I get a chance....

24. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63399 by The Wee Flea on August 14, 2007 at 4:39 am

Philip and Eepesit

If you don't mind I will get round to asking your questions on the thread they were asked in ASAP. I don't think it is fair to this website to have every thread I post in, dominated by questions about what I believe.

I will however make this general observation. If you are genuinely concerned (as I am) about the kind of extremism portrayed in this documentary, then in order to fight it, you are going to have to give up, what seems to be one of the central tenets of the atheist faith, that all religions are effectively the same. Apart from irrational and demonstrably falsifiable, it is also something that plays right into the hands of the extremists.

Meanwhile please leave me free to praise an article on this website, without reservation. Its a strange but pleasant feeling!

25. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63375 by The Wee Flea on August 14, 2007 at 3:27 am

This article is excellent and I agree with every word. I watched the programme and thought it did an great job and was balanced and informative. The notion that our police ar enot to become thought police is indeed Orwellian. What matters is whether what was said was true - not whether the British thought police or the spin doctors of New Labour think it is 'off message'.

I also agree with the comments - except rokorts. Why spoil a good case by then lumping together all religions as the same?

26. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61292 by The Wee Flea on August 4, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Katherine - yes. I have often been wrong.

Stephen - I 'lambasted' Billy for his claim that Wilberforce wrote letters as a 14 year old Deist. I also have pointed out that I have seen copies of Wilberforce's letters when he was a schoolboy. In fact if I recall correctly he wrote one when he was 13. I also pointed out that Wilberforce became a 'Christian' around age 9-10, although there was period of backsliding and then a renewal to evangelical Christianity. Billy was trying to suggest that Wilberforce's anti-slavery had little to do with his Christianity. He was doing so based upon very little information.

Now Stephen you may regard all that as the work of an internet kook. I would just regard it as good history.

Perhaps you can help me and explain why having a desire to find the truth historically is so wierd?

History and theology are my academic disciplines. As a general comment (note that this applies to Christians and athiests alike) I share the increasing concern that there is a tendency for people to go to the Internet or other quick fix sources of information and then post statements out of context as though they were absolute truth. In this instance Billy has a need to believe that Wilberforce was a Deist and anti-slavery before he became a Christian - so on the basis of something he read he decides to place that information in the public domain. Anyone who has read any of the biographies of Wilberforce (and I have three of them) would realise that this statement is not true. There is more than ample evidence of WIlberforces thinking as a child - and there is almost no evidence that he was a Deist (although I would be happy to see the evidence - it would make his conversion all the more remarkable - the evidence would have to be primary source evidence - I have not read a great deal of Wilberforce's personal correspondence but I trust those who have - however if you know different).

In similar vein there are Christians who want to believe that Darwin experienced a death bed conversion - you can google and come up with the 'evidence'. Historically it is basically the case that this is a spurious claim - but it does not stop some Christians making the claim becaue they 'read it in a book' or 'saw it on the internet'. All I am saying is that it is very unwise to make sweeping historical and sometimes hysterical statements based upon the most limited research. Anyone can google - not everyone takes the time to examine the evidence. And by the way Billy, this is where the 'appeal to authority'comes in. I am much more inclined to accept Dawkins comments on biology because he is a qualified and brilliant biologist. His 'authority' is tied in with his position etc. That does not make him infallible but it does mean he deserves respect. Likewise Hague is an excellent historian whose writing talents have been respected by his peers. For Billy to dismiss this as 'an inaccurate little book', without having read it, and then to dismiss any citation of Hague as 'an appeal to authority', is not the best way to behave.

Another example of this from my side is the oft quoted example of Einstein who Christians often want to claim as some kind of Theist. But as Dawkins clearly demonstates in TGD this is just simply wrong.

At a personal level I have no problem with someone pointing out historical facts etc that I have got wrong. Like science that is the way that historians learn. However I am really tired of the way that some (by no means all) atheists seem to regard everything as personal and worthy of personal insult. It is actually very wearing.

I am sure this won't be the last word. I will leave you to Google. But please can I suggest to you both, that if you are really serious about understanding Wilberforce then get Hague's biography. If on the other hand you are just out to make a point, please don't bother. It's pointless.

27. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61264 by The Wee Flea on August 4, 2007 at 11:50 am

I'm sorry Stephen I just cannot let your remarks pass. I will leave aside the rather silly hyperbole that I am lambasting all atheists for 'being right' as though your atheism was now dependent on whether Wilberforce wrote letters as a schoolboy. Furthermore I never said that all athiests are as daft as that, any more than most Christians adopt the 'evolution is just a theory' approach. I was just pointing out how stupid it is to make claims about people (Wilberforce was a Deist) without ever having read about them and then dismissing the major historical biography as 'an inaccurate little book' - clearly not having read it.

My simple objection was to Billy making the assertion, without any evidence, that Wilberforce was a Deist before he converted to Christianity and that as a schoolboy Deist he wrote letters to the press. I think Billy was trying to make the point that Wilberforce's anti-slavery was nothing to do with his Christianity.

Wilberforce, according to his own testimony, and as far as we know was never a Deist. He first became an evangelical Methodist when he was nine years old. An event which so horrified his mother that she rushed to take him home and try to cure him of his 'delusion' (RD would have been proud!). His spiritual renewal occured when he was about 24. I realise that Billy thinks quoting a reputable historical authority is unfair because it is appealing to authority, but I would hope that most atheists would be prepared to look for evidence on all sides - not just that which supports them. It shows an incredible imbalance to get all worked up like Stephen does about when Wilberforce sent letters. I don't deny that he wrote letters as a schoolboy - why should I when I have seen copies of them? I do deny that he wrote as a Deist. In fact the following is from a letter he wrote aged 13 in 1772 "one of the greatest misfortunes I had at Hull was not being able to hear the Blessed Word of God, as my mama would not let me go to High Church on a Sunday afternoon" .From his childhood he adopted an evangelical Christian position. It was just as well for the anti-slavery movement he did - or we might have had the 'zeitgeist' of Huxley and others for many more years of slavery.

PS. I know and accept that there were professing Christians who supported slavery. That is not the point. The point is that, as Wilberforce himself stated, it was his belief in God and the teachings of the Bible, which drove him to committ to abolishing slavery. He may have been deluded but at least have the grace to acknowledge what the man said himself. And please stop nit-picking.

PPS I do think that the inability you have to correct one another and the way that you leap to defend your own 'tribe' is yet another indication of how religious fundamentalist like your behaviour is. Sometimes its ok to be wrong. You need not need to treat every detail as though it were a do or die point which you will never concede. It would be much more impressive and reasonable if at times, instead of rushing to Google or your nearest atheist website, you said to one of your own - listen on this point you are wrong. One suspects it will be a cold day in hell .....

28. The Out Campaign

Comment #61230 by The Wee Flea on August 4, 2007 at 9:15 am

519. Comment #60840 by Quetzalcoatl on August 3, 2007 at 1:13 am
Flea (re comments made to Billy Sands)-
Please don't place all your poor theology on everyone else. If you were a Christian you should never have looked down on anyone else. I strongly suspect your Christianity

You should be careful about this. Ultimately the only person who can know about the beliefs he held was Billy himself. On another thread a different theist presumed to judge what my beliefs were back when I was a Christian, which was quite offensive to me.

I am not making any assumption. Billy explicitly told us that he looked down on people when he was a Christian. Are you saying I should not take what Billy says at face value? Now that Billy is an atheist he can look down on the poor deluded fools who are Christians…

Your point re my question-
I believe that people are only saved through Jesus. I am just not in the position to make as simple a formula of it as you do.


Why on earth not? You are a minister and a Christian. You undoubtedly know far more about what the Bible says than I do.

I am a minister and I am a Christian and I do know more about the Bible than you. Which is precisely why I cannot go the formula route you do.

520. Comment #60841 by Philip1978 on August 3, 2007 at 1:18 am

I am not angry at god, I know he doesn't exist, I am dissatisfied with people like you ruining other people's psychological well being by scaring the crap out of them with tales of some non existent invisible tyrant who falls asleep on the job when needed!

But why do you assume that's what we do? I spend every week dealing with people who are facing similar kinds of situations. What on earth do you think we tell them

How on earth do you justify telling people the good Lord will save them if they pray and follow the bible and then spout crap about God having nothing to do with their misfortunes!

But I don't tell them that. You are judging without any knowledge.

I am irritated by this whole stupid concept of that stinking lie in the bible, which you read and follow, that if you pray to God in Jesus's name all your prayers WILL come true. My friend prayed a lot and nothing happened so why tell people God is going to help them because the Bible says so and then tell me that...

Yes – I agree. It's a nonsense to say that all you have to do is pray and that God will give you the answer you want. Its unbiblical rubbish and dangerous rubbish. As you point out.

522. Comment #60845 by Goldy on August 3, 2007 at 1:50 am
Really. He was the son of a farm labourer, went to a State school an ordinary University? Which parallel universe do you live in? The one where all people are born blank and all have equal opportunity? Meanwhile back in the real world….

Ach, you puir diddums! You never had a chance did you?"

Goldy – please pay attention. I was answering the earlier jibe that myself and RD had just the same opportunities etc . Something self-evidently nonsense. However you can and will twist it whatever way you want…

523. Comment #60846 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 1:50 am
Your belief that the universe consists of more than you can perceive makes you dishonest.

Bizarre. You really think that if you cannot perceive it, it cannot exist?

527. Comment #60858 by Goldy on August 3, 2007 at 2:39 am
As for WeeF - I can't think why I shall bother with him and his self loathing. He'll deny it, but look at that comment....loser that he is.

Self loathing? That's a new one. Just how did you work that one out? Isn't it great to have such insight?

531. Comment #60881 by scottishgeologist on August 3, 2007 at 4:16 am
But I am finished now with this one. These online spats are starting to get repetitive.

Indeed. I write in response to one of the threads – in this case on outing atheists. Whatever the subject you and Billy ask about the Pope. I point out that I do not think the Pope is the anti-Christ and then you try to tell me my own churches laws. Its bad enough having amateur lawyers in the Church – but outside as well. Help!

568. Comment #61028 by Northern Bright on August 3, 2007 at 11:28 am
Wee Flea writes:
Without empirical evidence please be silent.
Wonderful! :-)
Would I be right, Wee Flea, in thinking that you believe (and are not silent about) things such as the existence of God; that the Bible is the revealed Word of God; the Virgin Birth; the Resurrection; the existence of heaven and hell; and of Judgement Day; the Trinity; and that faith in Jesus Christ is the only route to the Father?

If so (and it's hard to see how a Minister in the Free Church of Scotland could fail to believe in at least some of them), I look forward to seeing your empirical evidence for them - unless, of course, lack of it forces you into silence.

Yep – believe it all. And there is loads of evidence for it. None of which you would of course accept.

569. Comment #61060 by _J_ on August 3, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Overall, there's a wide spectrum of possible interpretations, which is why we can find you with your church of happy homosexuals (apparently) on the one hand, and those lunatic Phelps' on the other. Somewhere along the line you are choosing how you take all this stuff. I'm sure it's not as simple as your personal taste. But there's still a choice there.

No – its not just choice. Its basic principles of reading. Context etc.

At last! Now, that paragraph would have been very welcome back near the beginning of this thread. But time and again, you gave half-answers like 'I've never said the Pope was the anti-Christ' – which immediately makes us think 'Why hasn't he mentioned the WCF? Is he hiding something?' And, as is usually the case, as is usually the case, the result is just that you'll hear the same questions over and over again.

You will excuse me pointing out that this thread is about atheists coming out. Quite what this has to do with the WCF is beyond me. And why would you and others want to talk about it? Just accept my word that I do not believe the Pope is the anti-Christ and get back to the subject. Otherwise it becomes nonsensical.

Atheism has no problem here. Our conception of the value of human life comes from what we can observe to be true about human life – that it's the medium through which we experience everything that we ever experience, and that it's all too easily impaired or ended. This, as I've pointed out to you often, means that we must regard human life as the most valuable thing going.

But you are assuming that atheists all have the same beliefs about human beings. Even on this thread I was yelled at for suggesting that human life was more precious than animal. It is not self evident that atheists were treat all humans as being equal etc. In fact the original atheistic evolutionists used evolution to justify racism etc.

Veronique - The other, really glaring thing about the Flea, is that he has absolutely no sense of humour or the ridiculous. I think it is because I read all the comments at one sitting for a change, even tried to read all of his:-) that I have finally become aware of that. What a sad man.

Humour? Not sure. Sense of the ridiculous? How is that possible when I read this MB regularly?

I also realised that he probably uses RD's site to give vent to some very deep-seated, unconscious psychological distress that he just can't do on his own church site. What a hole he has dug for himself! Looks like we have got him forever. Have we got a good shrink here?

Obviously not! Could someone please explain why some people have this deep need to psychoanalyse me? And can I point out that there is nothing I say here that I cannot say on my own church website. But Veronique – what does truth matter to the rationalists and self-righteous?

587. Comment #61142 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 11:37 pm
The story of the virgin birth is actually a mistranslation, in the original Hebrew it only said the Messiah would be born of a young woman. The pope sat down one day, thought about it, and then decided, with god's help of course, that the virgin birth story was true.

Oh dear. Here we go again. This is an old atheist myth that gets repeated ad naueum on atheist websites and is believed as Gospel truth by the faithful. Baeoz have you read the original Hebrew? I have it sitting in front of me and you are simply wrong. But why should evidence get in the way of myth?

600. Comment #61186 by Veronique on August 4, 2007 at 4:23 am
You guys are just gorgeous. Thank you so much for answering my heartfelt questions with such irreverence. It suits:-)

Thanks. I love you too…

02. Comment #61189 by newatheist on August 4, 2007 at 4:44 am
WeeFlea Wrote -
In Scotland every child has the right not to participate in school prayers. You want to take away the right for those who want to.
So children want to pray! Which children? The children whose parents have told them they need to pray.

No. Yesterday I met the child of an atheist parent who told me, in front of her parents, that she wanted to pray and to come to Church. Life is not as simple as you think. Do you want to ban any parental influence on children? Or is it just when it is irrational, intolerant etc (ie. Religious!).

604. Comment #61192 by Northern Bright on August 4, 2007 at 5:30 am

So when did Christianity begin to believe and teach that Jesus was virgin born? It seems to have been shortly after the first Christian missionaries returned from India.

Fantastic. There were Christian missionaries in India in the 1st century? Could you please give the evidence for this?

Off to Bulgaria – have a flea free week. I'll live you to discuss your myths, fears and hatreds without hinderance. Meanwhile can anyone answer the perfectly legitimate question as to when RD last produced a science paper?

29. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61215 by The Wee Flea on August 4, 2007 at 7:49 am

You'll be glad to hear that this post and the one on the 'Out' thread will be my last for a wee while. Perhaps the next time I post it might be possible for people to stick to the issues that are being discussed on the thread and not bringing up again the usual shibboleths.

169. Comment #60849 by epeeist on August 3, 2007 at 2:13 am
There is one (and one only) tenet to atheism as far as I am aware.

That would make for an interesting website and a very short book! However as you well know there are a considerable number of other atheist tenets.

172. Comment #60878 by BillySands on August 3, 2007 at 4:02 am

:"Never heard him and religion mentioned together."

Had I said he was not religious, then I would be wrong. You must stop twisting my words. I had a bet that I could lure you into making a comment like that.
Shame on you David, you are making lies again

Fascinating. So speaking about the philanthropist Tom Hunter you wrote that you had never heard him and religion mentioned together', not because you wanted to make a claim that here was a good secular philanthropist, but because you wanted to trap me into revealing that he was a Catholic?! And then when I do so you accuse me of being a liar?! I think it will take a wee while to work out the convoluted thinking of that one. Of course we could just read it as you wrote it.

Do the decent thing and concede that non christians did a hell of a lot more than christians.

- Must be missing something. Oh yes. I think its called evidence!

. He was certainly writing to newspapers on the subect before he was 14. Incidentally, wikipedia puts his convertion some time around the age of 26. Was this the same "14 pints a night Hague" who wrote your inacurate little book? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting again?

Billy, you really are very helpful to me. You remind me a lot of some Christians who knowing nothing about science are given a tract which states that evolution is just a theory. They jump on this with glee and start decalring this wonderful truth all over the place – much to the frustration of those who know something about science and who know that everything in science is technically a theory. But that does not stop them. They become fixated on the one thing because it seems to offer them self-justification for their beliefs. You are doing exactly the same. Relying on wikipedia you really think that William Wilberforce was a Deist who are writing letters to newspapers before he was 14! You have no evidence for this – you have never read a life of Wilberforce or any of his material but like our 'evolution is a theory' person you cannot let go. So you resort to an ad hominem attack on Hague. What does that have to do with his book? Hague's book on Wilberforce is not my 'inaccurate (and how delicious that you spell inaccurate wrong!) little book'. It is over 500 pages of good historical writing and research which I would suggest that you read before you pontificate. Hague won the History book of the year with his biography on Pitt and is a recognized and serious historical writer. Your attempt to belittle him only shows the extent to which you are prepared to abuse, and your utter refusal to think outside your own somewhat closed wee box.

178. Comment #60895 by Katherine on August 3, 2007 at 5:03 am

Scientific research has slowly debunked most of the Bible's explanations for what is wrong. They believed that epileptic seizures were because these people were possessed by demons and devils. We now know that it is caused by disturbances of electrical activity in the brain, and has been proved by testing and research. Why then, does the Bible continue to peddle old myths of demonic possession?

- But that is your interpretation of what was happening. There is no evidence that people in Biblical times thought that epileptic seizures were really demonic possession. In fact what is happening is that 20th century atheists are reading back into the text and thinking that this must have been the case therefore this was the case. You have no evidence whatsoever for your statement.

Have you been broadminded enough, as I have, to consider a life of atheism? Perhaps, if you have not yet done so, would you read 'My Beautiful Loss of Faith Story: A Memoir' by Julia Sweeney, who also has toured with her 'Letting Go of God' routine?

- Yes I have considered atheism and yes I would like to read Julia Sweeneys book. Of course if I adopted the standard atheist argument on this thread I would not read the book because a) it does not agree with me b) it is self evidently nonsense (because it does not agree with me) and c) why should I give money to fleas who are just trying to make money off the back of religion!

180. Comment #60902 by fonex_86 on August 3, 2007 at 5:28 am
Wee Flea,

Just wanted to ask, do you absolutely, 100%-ly believe in the validity of the New Testament as the prime source on Jesus' teachings for Christians?

Yes.

If you do, how do you reconcile your belief with the facts:
1. that not one original document of the constituents of the New Testament has ever been found, and

- Easy. If I write a letter and it is then copied by ten different people who place the copies in different places and then the original is lost. However I get eight of the ten copies and they all say the same thing. Logically it is not a problem for me to recognize that I have the original text although I may not have the original document.

2. that, given the level of accuracy of "manual" (by-hand, letter-by-letter) copying of documents in the period 1st century AD to 4th century AD, the oldest copies of the New Testament we have now are exact replicas of the original?

- Basically we have 5,000 extant ms of the NT in that period and yes they are remarkably accurate. What do you know about the level of accuracy of manual copying of documents in the period?

181. Comment #60905 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 5:34 am
Logic is king (except when beer is present.) Something WeeFlea will refuse to acknowledge, even though, on some level he can see that his view are illogical. He just hasn't opened his mind enough to choose. Not that you can just "choose" to open your mind. So, he'll lie into the near future.

This is why I call a lot of what goes on here atheist fundamentalism. It's a great defence – if you disagree with me you are self-evidently illogical, have a closed mind and are a liar. If you disagree with that it is because you are self-evidently illogical, have a closed mind and are a liar. If you disagree with that it is because you are self-evidently illogical, have a closed mind and are a liar…. And so on. Its what I call the atheist eternal loop….

183. Comment #60933 by SRWB on August 3, 2007 at 6:32 am

The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense...

Thanks – you beat me to it. What I find interesting is that whilst some atheists have recognized the horror of these words most on this site have written in defence of them. (Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if a Christian leader had said that it may be ethical to kill people because of what they believed?!). But those writing in defence are missing the main point. Harris is not saying that people could be killed because of what they have done but that they can be killed because of what they believe – if that belief could be deemed as dangerous. It is horrendous and even more frightening that so many of you are so tribal in your faith that you cannot countenance criticism of one of your prophets.


Daksian,
Your post was excellent. Some good ideas and thoughts. Of course I write in a provocative way but my intention in writing on here is not to provoke but to challenge. I actually have been really surprised at the reaction and yes, you are right the Internet is not the best place to ascertain the strengths of a particular movement. However the vehemence and continual ad hominem and repetition is somewhat surprising.

And thanks for returning to the subject of this thread. The simplistic views that fundamentalists of both sides hold are a) these books are obviously written by fleas who are just out to make money off Dawkins back or b) this is utterly preposterous and these flea writers are only motivated by truth, love and world peace. Both are simplistic and wrong. Of course there are people who see the opportunity to make a fast buck (although in reality this is very unlikely) but most will have a mixture of motives.

187. Comment #60969 by Riley on August 3, 2007 at 7:58 am

Why did the Free Church remove our exchange from their website?

and

Are you actively working to correct the misinformation that you spread with regard to Richard Dawkins' position on child abuse? and if not, why not?

For the umpteenth time the Free Church closed its MB because it was being misused and abused by (mostly) religious imbalanced people. It was giving an entirely wrong impression of the Free Church (most people who posted were not Free Church) and so we decided to close it down and start again with a moderated board. Now of course the conspiracy theorists on this MB could not accept that and so they spread the belief amongst themselves that it was closed because of the number of atheists writing such devastating arguments that the Church could not cope! And I'm afraid that this is like dealing with 'Diana was murdered' conspiracists. No matter what is said they will believe what they want to believe. My only answer is 'all I've got is a red guitar, three cords and the truth''. Meanwhile you are very welcome to post on the new MB. All atheists welcome.

And my comments about RD and child abuse still stand. His chapter nine is horrific.

190. Comment #60990 by Daksian on August 3, 2007 at 9:04 am
What I am seeking to do is expose his tactics for what they are: deliberately incendiary and aimed towards self-justification.

And your first post was so reasonable! I'm afraid that I have other aims and motives than that. The bottom line is that on this website anything which goes against the party line is going to be incendiary.

191. Comment #61001 by Fedler on August 3, 2007 at 9:38 am

I once recall you saying you were once tempted or drawn to atheism early in your life (I can't remember your exact wording). Do you remember why you were inclined toward non-belief at the time?

Because atheism would have made life a whole lot easier and because I was fed up with religious hypocrisy and injustice in the world. It a way it is just so much more simplistic. But it did not square with the facts for me. At the end of the day atheism just seemed to me to be intellectual and spiritual suicide. And it certainly made the injustice worse - in fact I could not see how there was any coherent atheist concept of justice at all

192. Commen