This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Another Flea is Born

Another Flea is Born - Comments

BAEOZ's Avatar Comment 1 by BAEOZ

First they ignore you, then they mock you.....then you win?

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:30:00 UTC | #59133

DrShell's Avatar Comment 2 by DrShell

Is that supposed to be Sam Harris in front? That's...offensive.

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:34:00 UTC | #59135

BAEOZ's Avatar Comment 3 by BAEOZ

We gotta keep up the struggle me thinks. Last night, catching the bus to the station, I saw a sign on a church saying: "Another inconvenient truth, those who don't accept Jesus will suffer eternal damnation". Then on the TV last night, both the PM and the opposition leader pandered to a christian audience and had this webcasted for the benefit of other believers.
This sucks! First churches are allowed to be dishonest and claim their irrational beliefs as truth. That should be illegal. If an insurance company offers something it can't substantiate, it's gets run out of dodge. Then political leaders suck up to christians and give them favors over others to sure up a few votes. Not happy John!

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:40:00 UTC | #59139

Goldy's Avatar Comment 4 by Goldy

Another inconvenient truth, those who don't accept Jesus will suffer eternal damnation

Isn't that hate speech? I'm sure someone could sue for distress caused ;-)

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:44:00 UTC | #59141

jaydon64's Avatar Comment 5 by jaydon64

Not happy John indeed, but let us not forget that Rudd is a born again who reguarly attends bible study. I guess its a no-win situation

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:58:00 UTC | #59145

mlb1984's Avatar Comment 6 by mlb1984

Is that Darwin at the top? I thought he was agnostic, not a "village atheist".

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:00:00 UTC | #59146

thebigredmachine's Avatar Comment 8 by thebigredmachine

If I'm Sam (which, unfortunately, I am not), I'm loving that cover, and not just for an "any publicity is good publicity" reason.

The cover does so much more discredit to the author than to Sam, because A) equating him by association with the others on the cover is inevitably going to make unfamiliar readers curious to find out who this Sam Harris character is, and B) Sam's style and mannerisms are so unassuming a likable that any reasonable person would probably deem the author a moron for equating him with Stalin.

Then again, I suppose I'm assuming reasonableness...

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:00:00 UTC | #59148

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 7 by Agrajag

Gee, for a moment there I thought the title was a parody of "The Village Idiot". Nice.

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:00:00 UTC | #59147

toddaa's Avatar Comment 9 by toddaa

Who's the guy between Darwin and Marx?

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:19:00 UTC | #59151

BAEOZ's Avatar Comment 10 by BAEOZ


Not happy John indeed, but let us not forget that Rudd is a born again who reguarly attends bible study. I guess its a no-win situation

Totally man. I'm off Rudd too. But the phrase "Not happy John and Kevin" doesn't have the cachet of the original.....

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:21:00 UTC | #59152

phasmagigas's Avatar Comment 11 by phasmagigas

im suprised the cover didnt actually have sam harris eating a baby or snapping a cross or something.

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:33:00 UTC | #59153

Dr Benway's Avatar Comment 12 by Dr Benway

They left out Hitler.

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:34:00 UTC | #59154

BAEOZ's Avatar Comment 13 by BAEOZ

Dr. Benway, has your David Bowie avatar eaten Tuffy the tit-avian?

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:35:00 UTC | #59155

_J_'s Avatar Comment 14 by _J_


Last night, catching the bus to the station, I saw a sign on a church saying: "Another inconvenient truth, those who don't accept Jesus will suffer eternal damnation".

You know what, it's disgusting, isn't it? When you think about it, that's just brainless, untargeted emotional blackmail. If it's not outright malicious, then it's unacceptably irresponsible. Something should be done.

What you need is a few pre-prepared signs in your car that you can swiftly stick onto hateful lies like this, so as to provide clear factual reassurance for passersby. Simple, inarguable stuff like 'BEWARE OF THE GOD' and 'GOOD HAS TWO "O"S'

When faced with repeat offenders, you are allowed to be a little more opinionated. Obvious developments of the theme are 'GOD IS FOR LIFE, NOT JUST FOR CHRISTMAS - WHY RUIN EITHER?', and 'GOD: MAN'S BEST FIEND'. (It's easy enough to make something church-appropriate out of the term 'GODHOUSE', too.)

I daresay you can come up with much wittier, punchier and more effectively antitoxic legends than these.

Preparing cheap signs should be easy enough, but I'm as yet undecided about the best means of fixing them up. It's a fine line between 'uselessly fragile' and 'vandalism'. Use your discretion, I suppose.

Have fun fighting the go(o)d fight and combating hatespeech!

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:44:00 UTC | #59156

MrEmpirical's Avatar Comment 15 by MrEmpirical

Someone needs to point out to all the fleas how weak their faith must be if they get all insecure about the publication of a handful of atheistic books in a sea of religious literature.

I reckon at least half of the fleas' books are less attempts to convince others than they are attempts by the authors to convince themselves. It's sad, really.

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:51:00 UTC | #59169

BAEOZ's Avatar Comment 16 by BAEOZ

_J_ I was thinking along those lines. Perhaps reading your posts has improved my IQ a little. :P
I was thinking of a piece of card, with something along those lines. Still haven't quite got a punchy slogan that shows their slogan is dishonest and silly. My trouble is I waffle on and never really say anything concise that grabs you. (You may have noticed this in my posts).

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:56:00 UTC | #59170

Ewan D's Avatar Comment 17 by Ewan D

I for one think the Christian message is so beautiful, it deserves to be advertised on every church:

"Christ Died Temporarily For Our Sins"

Now that has a real ring to it.

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:18:00 UTC | #59173

BAEOZ's Avatar Comment 18 by BAEOZ

Ewan D:

"Christ Died Temporarily For Our Sins"

That's brilliant :)

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:21:00 UTC | #59174

Ewan D's Avatar Comment 19 by Ewan D

Thanks BAFOZ! Popped into my mind when I saw a neon sign missing the all important modifier!

toddaa, looks like Thomas Huxley.

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:28:00 UTC | #59175

Monkey2's Avatar Comment 20 by Monkey2

Great bit of advertising for the village atheist who has been over-run with work and personal matters but has now returned.

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:47:00 UTC | #59178

artemisa's Avatar Comment 21 by artemisa

Another inconvenient truth. Those who accept superstition for truth will suffer eternal delusion.

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:55:00 UTC | #59181

Chayanov's Avatar Comment 22 by Chayanov

"Isn't that hate speech? I'm sure someone could sue for distress caused ;-)"

It should be considered a hate crime, given that motive is all-important for hate crimes. The motive in this case is to intimidate non-Christians through fear (never mind that the result is we laugh at them -- it's the motive that matters). Look at how some people went on about motive and intimidation with the flushing of the Koran.

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:56:00 UTC | #59182

ignored_ethos2's Avatar Comment 23 by ignored_ethos2

There is one customer comment now on the Amazon site. Not exactly a best seller. I'm sure you can guess what the "customer" rated it.

Also, I found this comment interesting:

My copy of this book came shrink wrapped, and I was surprised that the cover is bound upside-down, which must be a joke about the village idiot/atheist mindset.

Yeah, either that or it is just a crappy publisher.

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:17:00 UTC | #59185

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 24 by Cartomancer

Sounds like a film sequel doesn't it? You can just imagine the original schlock horror b-movie:

"Dare you enter...the Village of the Atheists!"

Cringe with fear as they make brain-melting rational arguments! Gasp with fright as they revise their moral code to achieve a fairer and more ethical society! Shiver with spine-tingling terror as they act in an unremarkably sane and sensible manner, not once making reference to thousand year old texts!

Coming soon to a cinema near you! (We hope...)

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:24:00 UTC | #59186

RonnieG's Avatar Comment 25 by RonnieG

Some recent messages I've seen on a Lutheran church's sign here in the states (same one for all 3):

"Jesus built us a bridge with two boards and three nails."

"Want to avoid burning? Use Son block."

"Stop drop and roll does not work in hell."

I get mixed feelings whenever I see them. I'm simultaneously offended and yet tickled to laugh out loud at the absurdity of them.

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:38:00 UTC | #59187

roach's Avatar Comment 26 by roach

The second one sucks. But the other two are funny. Haha.

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:43:00 UTC | #59188

Russell Blackford's Avatar Comment 27 by Russell Blackford

Something should be done.

This raises a very interesting issue. I don't think anything can be done ... at least not by the state (but I'm not sure that that is what J had in mind, since he's talking about direct responses from opponents of this horrible nonsense from hellfire religionists).

I actually think that a certain amount of morally bad behaviour from theists has to be officially tolerated on separation-of-church-and-state grounds. I'd like to see atheists be principled about this, as Richard has been (if I understand his position correctly, e.g. on emphasising consciousness raising, rather than legislation). But it's a complex issue. I'm going to try to develop some of the argument when I talk to the local Rationalist Society in Melbourne on Wednesday night, but I need to think it through a lot more. Yes, this is a shameless plug to any Melburnians who are reading. :)

Generally, though, it doesn't surprise me if we atheists are like other people who have to accept (at the level of the role of the state) a certain amount of behaviour that (at a personal level) they consider immoral. That seems like an inevitable outcome if you are both an atheist and something like a Millian liberal.

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:17:00 UTC | #59193

Corylus's Avatar Comment 28 by Corylus

See your point Russell. In terms of doing something that might be up to Sam. Sooner or later one of these Flea books are going to cross the border into libel country. (If they haven't already - I admit I haven't read all of them).

If the publisher is so amateur that they print the book with the cover the wrong way around then I doubt that they have the text read by a lawyer or sent to a fact checker.

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:22:00 UTC | #59195

BAEOZ's Avatar Comment 29 by BAEOZ

I wasn't suggesting any governmental action. If you outlaw something, you'll only create martyrs. The battle should be about ideas, not laws. I just think it's wrong that they can post unverifiable crap and if I post a homemade poster over the top of their nonsense decrying it. I'll probably get done for vandalism.....

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:54:00 UTC | #59197

Flagellant's Avatar Comment 30 by Flagellant

Hi toddaa, re comment 9, #62429: unless he has a twin brother, the bloke between Darwin and Marx is Brian Sewell, the very droll British art critic. I understand that he's a Roman Catholic though, poor chap. Look at his adulation website and see what I mean about close resemblance:

Have the Return of the Village Atheist publishers scored an own goal?

Religion - an activity between consenting adults in private.
[Edited for minor point of accuracy.]

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:09:00 UTC | #59198