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

← This Week's Flea

This Week's Flea - Comments

Cook@Tahiti's Avatar Comment 1 by Cook@Tahiti

Hitch finally gets his own, albeit a third of a flea.

"extremist claims of scientific fundamentalism"

what - that there's simply no evidence for God? Extremist? Fundamentalist?

Obviously publishers know that anything with God in the title is going to sell now. Expect these to keep coming out until the market reaches saturation, and all the fleas (and the fleas' fleas') will end up in the bargain basement bins at the fleamarket.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:25:00 UTC | #95692

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 2 by Diacanu

God and the New Atheism offers a much-needed antidote...


...trying to think of a situation where poison would be an antidote....

Well, I guess, if you drank the right sort of acid, Drano could be the counter-agent....

Wouldn't ever want to test that one though...

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:33:00 UTC | #95699

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 3 by Diacanu

And yay! Hitchens flea!!

But as Rtambree said, a third of one.

Well, the cover counts too.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:34:00 UTC | #95700

Josh Timonen's Avatar Comment 4 by Josh Timonen

Rtambree,
I think you're right, we've got to give this one to Hitch. The yellow cover puts it firmly in his flea-space. These fleas keep appearing so fast, I don't have time to recreate the flea-orbit images!

Josh

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:34:00 UTC | #95701

Matt H.'s Avatar Comment 5 by Matt H.

Another on an increasingly long list. Have these charlatans no shame?

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:38:00 UTC | #95703

seekerofall's Avatar Comment 6 by seekerofall

excuse me.....could someone please explain to me what scientific fundamentalism is......is that an oxymoron?????


*rolling eyes in disgust*

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:40:00 UTC | #95706

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 8 by Steve Zara

I have to say that a critical response to Dawkins, Harris AND Hitchens sounds like it should be a rather substantial volume. Interestingly, Dennett seems to have been excluded.

The yellow cover puts it firmly in his flea-space.


Oh dear, some sort of horrible multi-coloured Venn Diagram comes to mind - the various dimensions of 'flea space'.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:40:00 UTC | #95709

ksskidude's Avatar Comment 7 by ksskidude

We will always have to fight against the constant backlash of flea's and their ilk.

It will never stop, ever......

It is sad that we will all die not ever seeing the day that the human race finally grows up and faces reality.
I find it funny that as children we can not wait to grow up, and when we finally do grow up, most act and think like children.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:40:00 UTC | #95707

Philster61's Avatar Comment 9 by Philster61

When are these fleas gonna go away? Theres a serious lack of flea powder somewhere.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:41:00 UTC | #95710

DCPirana's Avatar Comment 10 by DCPirana

Has anyone actually tried to read one of these? Of course, I won't buy any of them, but I think I'll check one out at the library, if only for the laughs. "Darwin's Angel" looks particularly amusing...

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:48:00 UTC | #95715

Arcturus's Avatar Comment 11 by Arcturus

When even from the first line he is creating a straw man:
"The only thing new in the so-called new atheism is the sense that we should not tolerate faith"
one wonders where the rest of the interview will take us.

The new thing is to get rid of religion's unfair status of being shielded from criticism.

"Nietzsche, as well as Sartre and Camus, all expressed it quite correctly. The implications should be nihilism."
So he thinks that this is the "correct" way an atheist should think. He makes me laugh.

edit: Even if he is pro-evolution, I find this guy obnoxious.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:49:00 UTC | #95717

RascoHeldall's Avatar Comment 13 by RascoHeldall

I am half-tempted to become a Flea myself and write my own response to Dawkins, so pitiful is the general standard of argument in these things. How hard can it be to actually READ what someone writes?
Or is strawmanning obligatory with these things?

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:57:00 UTC | #95727

righton's Avatar Comment 12 by righton

Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have made all of these christian authors a lot of money.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:57:00 UTC | #95725

USA_Limey's Avatar Comment 14 by USA_Limey

It is sad that we will all die not ever seeing the day that the human race finally grows up and faces reality.


It's a long shot but it could happen that in our lifetime all this nonsense goes away.

How?

Simple. ET shows up, shows us video footage of himself tinkering with some ape DNA to create us, says, "hi, were back, how you been doing since we saw you last - oh no bad, made a few decent advances but best drop that religious crap eh? Oh - here's the secret to faster than light travel come join us in the galactic community".


Well - that's how it goes in my head anyway.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:01:00 UTC | #95729

paceetrate's Avatar Comment 15 by paceetrate

"a world expert on science and theology"

How does a PhD in Theology make him a "world expert on science"? :P

I never trust a source that says someone is an "expert on science" without specifying what AREA of science.

Google, how I love thee.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:03:00 UTC | #95732

robotaholic's Avatar Comment 16 by robotaholic

wow I hate "The Village Atheist"'s front cover- Sam Harris looks TERRIBLE LOL! - he looks all angry...

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:03:00 UTC | #95734

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 17 by Diacanu

Not to mention they've got him right next to Pol Pot which is about as classless as old racist stereotype cartoons.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:12:00 UTC | #95742

jamesspills's Avatar Comment 19 by jamesspills

From the interview
"But if you ask me whether a scientific experiment could verify the Resurrection, I would say such an event is entirely too important to be subjected to a method which is devoid of all religious meaning."

Bingo...

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:15:00 UTC | #95747

BAEOZ's Avatar Comment 18 by BAEOZ

The new atheists don't want to think out the implications of a complete absence of deity. Nietzsche, as well as Sartre and Camus, all expressed it quite correctly. The implications should be nihilism.


Where in the canard collection does this one fit?

Canard a: Atheism is a faith
Canard b: Atheists are immoral.
Canard c: Atheism is self-refuting.
.....
Canard n: Atheism is nihilism.

I couldn't go on after this. The man is a either very ignorant or a liar. Neither interests me much today.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:15:00 UTC | #95746

D'Arcy's Avatar Comment 20 by D'Arcy

From the interview
"But if you ask me whether a scientific experiment could verify the Resurrection, I would say such an event is entirely too important to be subjected to a method which is devoid of all religious meaning."

Bingo...


James, you are exactly right! The absence of any scientific evidence for the existence of any deity, has gradually pushed the religios further and further from the real world. Apparently now God is "outside" of investigation by science as well as being "outside" of time. How the religios have a relationship with their god is forever a mystery to me. We mere humans just don't have the apparatus to detect God - according to the theologians.

Well that's fine by me, I'll just live without Him.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:30:00 UTC | #95762

Goldy's Avatar Comment 21 by Goldy

Athiesm is nihilism

That's what Neil at http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/ is trying to convince me of. Odd really, I tried my best to show that it is in fact the very opposite.
Such a different mind set....

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:40:00 UTC | #95774

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 22 by Diacanu

Y'know what I do when someone pulls the "atheism is nihilism", argument on me?

I shoot 'em in the kidney, clean out their wallet, and go "whaddya know, you're right".

Nah, not really, but that I don't, and presumedly none of you do shows how hollow and hateful a statement it is.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:44:00 UTC | #95778

Planeswalker's Avatar Comment 23 by Planeswalker

He left Dennett out? How dares he?!

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:46:00 UTC | #95779

Skutter's Avatar Comment 24 by Skutter

But, as John Haught shows, the treatment of religion in these books is riddled with logical inconsistencies, shallow misconceptions, and crude generalizations.


Is he talking about Dawkins et al or the bible? I'm confused now.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:48:00 UTC | #95782

Goldy's Avatar Comment 25 by Goldy

Hmmm, now that would be interesting, Diacanu. I shall try and get some examples next time i'm there, but the site makes my computer crash (can computers be athiest?) and I have to ask why I bother.
Some of the other contributers (mostly female names, oddly) asked why athiests seem to attack Christianity so much - they believe we don't question other religions....well, at least in the States, where Neil is, they assume that...

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:48:00 UTC | #95783

Zaphod's Avatar Comment 26 by Zaphod

The flea population seems to be infinite.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:51:00 UTC | #95786

notsobad's Avatar Comment 27 by notsobad

a world expert on science and theology

right

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:20:00 UTC | #95808

Szymanowski's Avatar Comment 28 by Szymanowski

Presumably the publisher can say to Xian bookshops: "Stock this... or be judged".

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:27:00 UTC | #95814

home8896's Avatar Comment 29 by home8896

*laughs hysterically* "compelling answers" *snorts* *chortles* Oh, that's rich.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:37:00 UTC | #95822

Red Foot Okie's Avatar Comment 30 by Red Foot Okie

Actually, the response on the Salon.com letters section was almost overwhelmingly against Haught. I didn't go through all of them, but that's the gist I got.

Which is a good sign.

Although Haught DID come out ID at the Dover trial, though. So you have to give him props for that.

Although he then tries to argue (I think) that science can't say anything about god, but that religeous "faith" is a crucial part of science.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:42:00 UTC | #95823