We can keep this book out of the Archives and in the limelight beyond the end of the quarter. Things have been slow around here and they always are this time of the year. With a couple quick edits I will extend this book discussion for another month. Yes, we'll still pick new books and start those discussions.

Chris OConnor wrote:We can keep this book out of the Archives and in the limelight beyond the end of the quarter. Things have been slow around here and they always are this time of the year. With a couple quick edits I will extend this book discussion for another month. Yes, we'll still pick new books and start those discussions.

That's great, Chris. With the late start and the switchover, I think we got behind the curve. I'm willing to stick to it as long as there's interest out there. I think both Mad and Niall are reading it now. So I hope everyone is ready to jump in now that things are settling down.

Love the new board. Good work.

George

You're going to love the board even more over time. This is just the very basics. The designer is working on sidebars for both the left and right sides. There will be so much added

Chris OConnor wrote:I'm happy that Mad and Niall are tackling your book!

Well, hopefully it won't just be them. Feel free to jump right in, Chris!

George

I'm reprinting this from the post I made while activity was still restricted to the temporary forums.

I know it probably won't count for much, but allow me to apologize in advance. As I write this, I'm finishing up chapter one, and have made notes as I progressed (which you'll see below and in the thread for chapter one). In a great many of those notes, I take issue with some of the things you've written. I've given a great deal of thought as to whether or not I should even post those thoughts, knowing that you're directly involved in the discussion. I didn't want to make a debate of the reading. I'm going ahead with posting them because I think it's entirely possible to agree with the larger part of the intent of the book while still dissenting on some of the particulars. On the whole, you can probably expect support and agreement from most of the regulars on BookTalk, and I have no doubt that my points of departure would seem much smaller were they couched in more discussion. I hope that counts for something.

Getting on to the discussion...
1. Several times you use the term "True Believer" to characterize a certain degree of religious conviction. I wonder if your thinking here is influenced by Eric Hoffer's book of the same name?

2. If you issue a second edition, might I suggest that you go through and eliminate some of the phrases that work against your premise that "there is a need to talk about these subjects to the broad mass of people, and to do so in a way that is neither patronizing nor elitist." I'm thinking specifically of comments like, "What make atheists atheists is that they have no belief in a cosmic super critter of any description." From what I've read so far, it looks as though your book is comparatively free of that kind of characterization, but you could do better than "comparatively." On the whole, a great deal of the atheist literature I've read traffics in descriptions and analogies that derive a certain part of their strength from trying to make religious belief look as silly and ridiculous as possible: they compare it to belief in, say, Martian unicorns, or compare God to Superman, and so on. Maybe that's how you really feel about religious belief -- though I suspect you're more sympathetic than many atheists -- but I hope you can at least agree that language of that sort is not likely to foster genuine discussion or mutual understanding.

I don't want to press the point too stridently, because the tone of your book is, so far, at least, far more conciliatory than that of most "New Athiest" bestsellers, but I hardly see how you can discourage that "charicature" of atheism by turning around and charicaturing theism. And I don't know how else to read a phrase like "cosmic super critter" save as charicature.

It seems almost indicative of atheist literature (though it is certainly not exclusive to atheist literature) that the express purpose of a book gets confused at some point. Clarification almost invariably turns into advocacy. It isn't enough that the theist be made to understand the atheist point of view; better that they share it as well. You say, for instance, that your "purpose... is not to convince you that I am right and you are wrong (if you believe in a god)", and I take it that the purpose you had in mind was to dissolve the negative connotations associated with atheism and make it possible for religious believers to understand and, at the very least, tolerate atheism more than they have historically. That seems, to me, a laudable goal. But only a few paragraphs before you say that Coleridge's "willing suspension of disbelief" is akin to what goes on in the minds of most religious believers. The one statement isn't really consistent with the other. Why call the theist's grounds for belief into question if your purpose isn't to convince them? If you had described your own position as one of suspension of disbelief, no one could argue, and few would be inclined to even try. But to extend that description to most theists turns it into a kind of argument by implication.

It's unfortunate, I think; but again, it's a far more minor complaint with your book than it is with others of the same genre. At least in these early chapters, it's something that could be amended without much effort. And I think the whole work would be stronger for it.

3. To be honest, I find your quote from Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" problematic. Not because I think atheists should be obliged to answer the questions or accusations of their opponents, but because I think the fact of a person's atheism implies some very valid and difficult questions, even given the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in, rather than a denial of, gods. Those questions aren't intrinsic, of course -- they arise from context in which all modern atheists live. In other words, an atheist living in an atheist culture wouldn't be faced with the same questions. But it does seem to me that a person who has accepted a great many of the institutions and assumptions of a culture that, over a long period of time, built those things on the premises of a particular belief (ie. theism), draws all of that into question when he abandons that belief.

You mentioned, for example, that most atheists you've met seemed like moral people. I have no doubt that they were, but we tend to assess their morality according to the standards of a society that premised its moral development on theistic belief. This is a point that I've raised in a number of other discussions, most notably, perhaps, in our discussion of Weilenberg's "Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe". Having removed God from consideration, Weilenberg then set about explaining how virtues like humility could be substantiated along naturalistic lines. He doesn't seem to have considered at all the possibility that atheism as a premise would lead to a set of values and morals completely distinct from the morality of theism! Adopting a new premise always carries with it the possibility (probability?) of logic leading to a new conclusion. Even if atheism is defined not as denial of god but simply lack of belief, that ought to change the course of the logic in any number of reasonings.

So while I sympathize with atheists who are forced by social circumstances to defend their morality against the claims of overweening theists, establishing an etiquette should not distract from the fact that the social variance does imply certain questions. Theists aren't necessarily the best source for those questions. Frankly, I think it's more imperative that the atheists ask them of one another. For whatever reason, they seem to have been reluctant to do so.

4. In the fourth footnote to this chapter, you equate religious belief with any strongly held set of beliefs. Do you mean that as literally as it reads? I know we talk of people who are "religious" fans of a particular baseball team, or who attend movies "religiously", but I don't think anyone takes those uses seriously -- they're a form of analogy. By the same token, I'd say it's possible to believe as strongly that your parents love you as you believe anything in religion, without that familial relationship necessarily becoming a religious matter. On the other side of the coin, I think it's just as possible to be religious without believing your religion as strongly as you believe in, say,
the force of gravity. On the whole, it looks to me as though the association of religion with doctrine -- that is, organized belief -- is the bias of the historical development of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions in the West. Apart from the role of any particular deity in a given tradition, I'm not sure that belief is the best criteria by which to define religion.

5. I think you make an excellent point in noting that the origin of a belief -- including religious belief -- neither justifies nor negates the validity of that belief. I've seen a lot of attempts to discredit religion by a sort of pseudo-historical method -- Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" comes to mind.

6. It's also valid to point out that "Christianity is such a huge denomination with so many mutually exclusive elements, it seems wishful thinking to call it one religion." But I'd extend that principle. The same is true of political parties, of national organizations, of ethnic groups, etc. That sort of internal fragmentation seems indicative of any large group (the primatologist Robin Dunbar has some interesting comments along those lines), and I'm not sure it says anything about religion in particular that isn't equally applicable to any other kind of large group.

7. You also note that your personal position of the supposed existence of a god or gods is provisional. I hope that's true; I think it's a commendable position to genuinely hold. There's a lot of talk among atheists and metaphysical naturalists of provisional belief, but from my experience, a lot of them are towing a party line in the interest of diplomacy. A great many atheists hold entrenched positions, and are eager to lock horns with anyone who would disagree. They want the challenge of a theistic debate -- not because they're open to challenges of their own beliefs, but because they want to see the opposition buckle. I don't think that's the case with you, but I did think it worth noting as it pertains to other atheists, as it's germaine to the question of why the overt conflict between theism and atheism hasn't dissipated in recent decades.

8. Oh, and just as a minor quibble, creator status is by no means consistent among religions as a criteria for divine status. This should be patently obvious with just about any polytheistic religion. Even if Hinduism attributes Creation to a god, it still makes reference to any number of gods that took no part in creating the world. The Greek creation story of Hesiod doesn't involve a creator god at all -- all the gods arise as parts of creation. So if having created the world is a baseline criteria for god status, how do we account for the plethora of non-creator gods that appear in so many religious traditions?

MadArchitect wrote: Getting on to the discussion...
1. Several times you use the term "True Believer" to characterize a certain degree of religious conviction. I wonder if your thinking here is influenced by Eric Hoffer's book of the same name?

Only to the extent that I'm aware of the book and its title. It's a work I've always meant to get around to reading but haven't yet.

I'm using the phrase "True Believer" to refer to the most dogmatic religionists. The "True Believer" usually claims to have the only valid understanding of "God" and his or her religion. I think it's clear from the context, but let me make it clear if it's not, that I understand most religionists do not fall into the category of "True Believers."

MadArchitect wrote: 2. If you issue a second edition, might I suggest that you go through and eliminate some of the phrases that work against your premise that "there is a need to talk about these subjects to the broad mass of people, and to do so in a way that is neither patronizing nor elitist." I'm thinking specifically of comments like, "What make atheists atheists is that they have no belief in a cosmic super critter of any description." From what I've read so far, it looks as though your book is comparatively free of that kind of characterization, but you could do better than "comparatively." On the whole, a great deal of the atheist literature I've read traffics in descriptions and analogies that derive a certain part of their strength from trying to make religious belief look as silly and ridiculous as possible: they compare it to belief in, say, Martian unicorns, or compare God to Superman, and so on. Maybe that's how you really feel about religious belief -- though I suspect you're more sympathetic than many atheists -- but I hope you can at least agree that language of that sort is not likely to foster genuine discussion or mutual understanding.

Here we disagree. The "cosmic super critter" isn't intended to be a caricature of anyone's idea about god. The phrase is aimed at the generic god concept. One of the reasons I use it is to move away from the word "god" in recognition that not all ideas about deities use that language. The "cosmic super critter" is a characterization of a generic entity, not the "God" of any religion and certainly not the "God" worshipped by any believer. And, yes, I will confess it is my way of poking a little gentle fun at the vagueries associated with the concept.

By the same token, I think it's clear my reference to Coleridge's "willing suspension of disbelief" is my opinion of the mechanism at the core of religious faith, most specifically the faith of the "True Believers" referenced earlier. It's certainly an arguable point, but I don't think it's necessary to avoid making the comment for fear someone may be offended.

Let's be clear. I don't have a very high opinion of most of the god ideas I've encountered and most of the religions I know about. This book is partly about my reasons for leaving those things behind. I don't know of any way to indicate those reasons without offering my opinions.

However, I assume this is for an audience of adults who can read without seeking out reasons for finding offense unnecessarily. I understand, as I indicated, that believers find it hard to have their beliefs criticized and tend to take it personally when they are. However, while I haven't intentionally gone out of my way to offend anyway, neither have I edited my opinions so as to avoid the possibility of giving offense

MadArchitect wrote: 3. To be honest, I find your quote from Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" problematic. Not because I think atheists should be obliged to answer the questions or accusations of their opponents, but because I think the fact of a person's atheism implies some very valid and difficult questions, even given the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in, rather than a denial of, gods. Those questions aren't intrinsic, of course -- they arise from context in which all modern atheists live. In other words, an atheist living in an atheist culture wouldn't be faced with the same questions. But it does seem to me that a person who has accepted a great many of the institutions and assumptions of a culture that, over a long period of time, built those things on the premises of a particular belief (ie. theism), draws all of that into question when he abandons that belief.

I think of atheism as a starting point from which one may well revisit a number of things, such as morality and so on. But one cannot legitimately infer a particular moral or philosophical (or any other) stance based on a declaration of atheism. Atheists come at these issues in all sorts of ways. The only legitimate implication to be drawn from atheism is that whatever position an atheist takes, a god won't be part of it.

MadArchitect wrote: 4. In the fourth footnote to this chapter, you equate religious belief with any strongly held set of beliefs. Do you mean that as literally as it reads?

No. Just that strongly held beliefs are sometimes called "religious." I wanted the reader to understand that when I use the word in this book, I'm referring to theistic religions and not the more colloquial uses of the word.

MadArchitect wrote: 5. I think you make an excellent point in noting that the origin of a belief -- including religious belief -- neither justifies nor negates the validity of that belief. I've seen a lot of attempts to discredit religion by a sort of pseudo-historical method -- Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" comes to mind.

Of course that doesn't mean that we ought not consider the origins (or what we think may be the origins) of such beliefs. I don't think that's so much an attempt to discredit religion as an attempt to understand it.

MadArchitect wrote: 6. It's also valid to point out that "Christianity is such a huge denomination with so many mutually exclusive elements, it seems wishful thinking to call it one religion." But I'd extend that principle. The same is true of political parties, of national organizations, of ethnic groups, etc. That sort of internal fragmentation seems indicative of any large group (the primatologist Robin Dunbar has some interesting comments along those lines), and I'm not sure it says anything about religion in particular that isn't equally applicable to any other kind of large group.

Such fragmentation is certainly true of large groups, including, as I note in the text, all other religions. However, it's important to understand that discussions about "Christianity" have to take that fragmentation into account, and that was the point of the comment.

MadArchitect wrote: 7. You also note that your personal position of the supposed existence of a god or gods is provisional. I hope that's true; I think it's a commendable position to genuinely hold. There's a lot of talk among atheists and metaphysical naturalists of provisional belief, but from my experience, a lot of them are towing a party line in the interest of diplomacy.

My opinion on the god/no god question is provisional because I think it has to be. I can see no way to prove or disprove the proposition "god exists" with any sort of certainty. That doesn't mean I don't have strong opinions on the matter, just that I recognize it may be futile to attempt to resolve it with any finality.

But you seem to be trying to have it on both ways when you speak of atheists "towing a party line in the interest of diplomacy" and then go on to say they're really itching for a fight with theists. I know that goes on, but I have to say that in my experience the vitriol and vehemence of the most extreme example of that sort of thing (feel free to chose your candidate for that honor) does not begin to compare with the vituperation that has been heaped by many members of the clergy and other theist as well on anyone who dares declare their atheism openly. Now I don't suggest that one justifies the other, but it certainly helps to explain it. Don't you think?

MadArchitect wrote: 8. Oh, and just as a minor quibble, creator status is by no means consistent among religions as a criteria for divine status. This should be patently obvious with just about any polytheistic religion. Even if Hinduism attributes Creation to a god, it still makes reference to any number of gods that took no part in creating the world. The Greek creation story of Hesiod doesn't involve a creator god at all -- all the gods arise as parts of creation. So if having created the world is a baseline criteria for god status, how do we account for the plethora of non-creator gods that appear in so many religious traditions?

You have to read what I said. "For purposes of this discussion, I am using the term "god" as it is commonly used in western civilization. God is a supreme being (a cosmic super critter, if you will) who created the universe, who created all that is in that universe and created it for a purpose."

I think your quibble is misplaced. I'm not talking about every possible idea about a deity ever offered, and I certainly recognize there are lots of variations out there. I don't claim to be writing an exhaustive compendium of all the nuances and variations of religious belief on the planet.

George

You guys may want to go over to our ezboard and copy the posts in the temp thread about Godless in America. We won't be moving that forum so this is the only way to bring them over.

http://p197.ezboard.com/fbooktalkfrm125

garicker wrote:

MadArchitect wrote:1. Several times you use the term "True Believer" to characterize a certain degree of religious conviction. I wonder if your thinking here is influenced by Eric Hoffer's book of the same name?

Only to the extent that I'm aware of the book and its title. It's a work I've always meant to get around to reading but haven't yet.

It's definitely worth reading at least once. Very germaine to a lot of what you talk about, although Hoffer uses the phrase to encompass secular fundamentalisms and utopians as well.

garicker wrote:The "cosmic super critter" isn't intended to be a caricature of anyone's idea about god.

Well, for what it's worth, I'm a theist, and it read like caricature to me.

This book is partly about my reasons for leaving those things behind. I don't know of any way to indicate those reasons without offering my opinions.

I know you're not likely to revise the book to the extent that would be necessary to incorporate this suggestion, but I'd say that the best way would be to present it in a more overtly biographical manner. Rather than talking about what religion is or seems to be, talk about how you progressed from seminary-enrolled theist to outspoken atheist. If you assessments of religion were presented as part of your personal development, they'd be less prone to come across as a more objective characterization.

But it may simply be the case that the two goals you've stated are at odds with one another. If contempt for religion is one of the reasons that you've left it behind, then it may not be possible to talk about both that and the impact that both religion and atheism have on American society without also patronizing or condescending to theistic readers.

garicker wrote:I think of atheism as a starting point from which one may well revisit a number of things, such as morality and so on. But one cannot legitimately infer a particular moral or philosophical (or any other) stance based on a declaration of atheism.

I'm not saying that atheists should. What I'm saying is only that it doesn't make sense for atheists to accept wholesale notions from a morality that was premised on, or at least intertwined with, theism. If a thoroughgoing atheist who takes seriously the task of determining an atheist morality (in the sense of "not contingent on theism") cannot formulate it with reference to the simple fact of his or her atheism (and we agree that they can't), then they'll simply have to find some other foundation on which to build. There have been fledgling attempts to build a morality premised on certain scientific theories, but I think that's a practice that comes with its own built in dangers -- not least of which being its potential effect on the practice of science. The Soviet adoption of Lamarckian evolutionary theory, for instance, was in part premised on the perception of how the Lamarckian model would better accord with Soviet values.

garicker wrote:Of course that doesn't mean that we ought not consider the origins (or what we think may be the origins) of such beliefs. I don't think that's so much an attempt to discredit religion as an attempt to understand it.

It can be either. I've made ongoing study of the origin of philosophical and religious ideas a regular part of my reading, so I'm certainly not one to dismiss the historical perspective. And I have a great deal of respect for the scholars and writers who have made a sincere effort to squelch whatever bias they may have when studying the origins of varying forms of belief. But at the same time, when a writer like Dennett or Dawkins gives some cursory rendering of the history of some belief or another, it certainly seems calculated to cast obloquy on that tradition. And in doing so, they often let personal bias dictate their choice of sources and their presentation of the material.

garicker wrote:My opinion on the god/no god question is provisional because I think it has to be. I can see no way to prove or disprove the proposition "god exists" with any sort of certainty.

If all you mean is that it's provisional because something could feasibly have so much force of persuasion that it could change your opinion for you, then I'm not sure there's much value to that notion of "provisional". I don't think that's what you mean, but when you break it down to a matter of proof or disproof, it's a little like saying that my opinion on phlogiston is provisional. Yes, the last several hundred years of science could be wrong, but I'm so confident of my opinion that there is no such thing that I am, for the most part, not even really willing to consider arguments to the contrary.

garicker wrote:But you seem to be trying to have it on both ways when you speak of atheists "towing a party line in the interest of diplomacy" and then go on to say they're really itching for a fight with theists.

I should be clear that when I say as much, I'm talking mostly about what I've come to refer to as "movement atheists". Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens are the most visible exponents at the moment. And at least two of them have declared the provisionality of their opinions, but those declarations don't entirely square with the suggestions they've made. They're also four of the most frequently mentioned names around BookTalk, and while I wouldn't characterize most of the current batch of regulars as movement atheists, there are certainly a few individuals whose declarations of provisionality on the subject of theism I take with a melon-sized grain of salt.

garicker wrote:I know that goes on, but I have to say that in my experience the vitriol and vehemence of the most extreme example of that sort of thing... does not begin to compare with the vituperation that has been heaped by many members of the clergy and other theist as well on anyone who dares declare their atheism openly.

I certainly wouldn't deny it. For one thing, it just makes sense in terms of numbers -- there are so few atheist compared to the rest of the population that they'd have to make a full time job of it just to keep up. And the vehemence of some supposedly pious offenders is enough to outweigh anything that we've seen from American atheists for most of the century. (That said, Spanish atheists during the Spanish Civil War and Russian atheist anarchists certainly didn't stop short of murder.) That said, the dialectical turns taken by movement atheists of late make me wonder if maybe the tide isn't likely to turn soon. Even if the current batch is as pacifistic as MLK, social and civil movements almost always produce a spectrum of response, and it's not at all implausible that an atheist equivalent to the Black Panthers could sprout up in the near future. I don't say that to excuse the behavior of the violent fringe of religious communities, nor to stir up some sort of pre-emptive fear, but just to say that the moral highground is a position you have to be diligent to hold, and that if someone who claims solidarity or affiliation with you steps down from that highground, they're likely to spatter mud as they go.

Sorry to follow one post so quickly on the heels of another, but I do want to clarify my position vis a vis this quote:

garicker wrote:However, I assume this is for an audience of adults who can read without seeking out reasons for finding offense unnecessarily. I understand, as I indicated, that believers find it hard to have their beliefs criticized and tend to take it personally when they are. However, while I haven't intentionally gone out of my way to offend anyway, neither have I edited my opinions so as to avoid the possibility of giving offense

I don't mean to suggest that you shouldn't be able to say whatever you want to say, particularly in your own book. I don't even mean to say that you shouldn't say how you feel, regardless of whether or not anyone is gonna like it. Personally, I side with Frank Zappa on that matter: anyone should be able to say anything they want, and anyone who's offended by it should be able to call them an asshole for it. But does that raise the level of discussion? Rarely, if at all.

My perception going into the book was that it was an attempt to reach out to an audience with which you disagreed and engage them in a discussion that would ultimately be profitable for everyone involved. That was my perception, mind you, and if I come away disappointed, it's partly my fault for bringing my own perceptions to the table. But at the same time, I think your book encourages that perception, both in its subtitle (which has the upperhand: "atheist" or "conversation"?) and in how you've expressed your intent in the Introductory chapter.

Maybe I just bought into those English class lessons about audience more than most people have. You have to weigh the audience you want against the audience you're likely to snag with any particular idiom you choose. If you want to write a book that lays everything down on the table, and reader's sensibilities be damned, you certainly can, and Im not one to complain about it. I'll probably even read it. Personally, I find that kind of book enjoyable, provided it's not run-of-the-mill or poorly written. So to say that you've tried to write what you believe without letting consideration for who it offended stand in the way of self-expression, that's all fine and well, but from my admittedly limited perspective it doesn't look like that's what you set out to do. For one thing, I'd expect that sort of book to be far more candid and confrontational -- your book has just a little too much decorum to be of that genre -- and for another I've taken seriously your intimations for the book's having a more utilitarian end.

What I'm getting at is, that if you had intended the book to open channels of communication between theists and atheists in the hopes of mediating some sort of solution to the impositions caused by theistic inroads into secular institutions, then it pays to be careful about who you're offending. It isn't even a matter of whether or not everyone involved is adult enough to take some ribbing with good humor. At the day's end, it's also an economic matter. Sitting down and reading some else's thoughts is expensive -- particularly if you're measuring that expense in time rather than dollars spent -- and if a person doesn't think their point-of-view is being taken seriously, they're likely to opt for a book that doesn't condescend. Which means they may move on before they get to the really valuable material in your book. Try not to view this as a question of intent -- if you tell me that you didn't mean to condescend, I've had enough respectful dialogue with you to take you at your word -- but rather one of effect. And from the perspective of a theist -- mind you, one who is tough-skinned enough to have parleyed in an atheist forum for the three years now (at least) -- some of your choices have come across as condescending. If, on reflection, you decide that conveying your opinion of religion without self-censure is more central to your vision of the book than arbitrating the social interaction between religious believers and atheists, then problem is solely mine. I just didn't take that to be your intent.

And for what it's worth, I think it's a relatively minor phenomenon in your book. There have certainly been more flagrant offenders. Dennett's "Breaking the Spell", for example, starts with several chapter's worth of "in the spirit of compromise"-themed build-up -- so much of it, in fact, that when the last half of the book begins to shuffle off the encumberance of an unbiased inquiry, the introductory material starts to look like classic bait-and-switch. (Click here to see the thread I started on Dennett's approach to his audience. I examine it more in specific chapter threads.) And there's not much point in even comparing your book to those of, say, Hitchens or Dawkins in terms of decorum. I just think that you have a better opportunity to even further moderate some of the aspects of your book that work against the spirit mutual understanding and to improve the odds that it will actually foster some sort of bilateral social change.

Yeah, I'm going to do the usual and say that I agree with a lot of what Mad is saying. I'm going to very extra-busy till the end of October so looks like I won't be able to make detailed posts round here often.

What bugged me was the constant use of the term "cosmic super-critter." Use it once, and it's mildly funny - though generally inaccurate. It's when you start to use it again and again, that it tends to edge toward pure mockery, which isn't the best way to endear yourself to anybody. You cannot compare teapots, critters or unicorns to a supernatural creator God without first changing their definition to the point where they don't have any of the properties normally associated with teapots, critters or unicorns. The use of these terms can only be interpreted as the kind of dirty debating trick that is best left to university debating societies.

But like Mad said, this is a much smaller problem in your book George than it is in the New Atheist works. It's just a pity that you use it given your desired audiences.

Oh and my only experience of the term "True Believer" came through Stan Lee.