Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME FORUMS BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:12 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Don't give creationists the attention they crave 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Moderator

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1404
Thanks: 142
Thanked: 558 times in 413 posts
Gender: Male

Post Don't give creationists the attention they crave
To paraphrase Dawkins in the piece "Unfinished Correspondence with a Darwinian Heavyweight" (His correspondence was with Stephen J. Gould.)

Dawkins cites a creationist (Wells) claiming he "hit a home run" at a Harvard debate. Wells was referring to merely the accomplishment of being invited to Harvard, so he could claim that universities are taking the debate seriously.

Incidentally, at the end of the essay Dawkins briefly talks about his major disagreement with Gould, with Gould apparently disagreeing about Dawkins' focus on the gene as the unit for natural selection. I'm still trying to understand this debate, as I find Dawkins persuasive on this point, but I haven't read much of the opposing argument. And I haven't read all of the essays in this book about Gould yet.



Sat May 28, 2011 8:45 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Unbound and Learned

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3176
Location: NC
Thanks: 1065
Thanked: 1136 times in 856 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
When we were reading The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype, I was also looking for more information about the arguments between Dawkins and Gould. I don't recall the finer points of the debate right now, but here's something that Gould wrote that may shed some light:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... mentalism/

Also see this archived thread:

post57210.html?hilit=Gould#p57210


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Dexter, Interbane
Sat May 28, 2011 2:14 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Unbound and Learned

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3176
Location: NC
Thanks: 1065
Thanked: 1136 times in 856 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
Those of us who teach English Composition sometimes worry about getting a "tin ear" by having to read so much writing that is frankly almost never very good and frequently terrible. Some of my fellow adjuncts actually worry about how this may effect their own writing and, indeed, apparently there are studies that back them up. (I haven't seen the studies myself).

I can imagine that arguing with creationists, besides being a complete waste of time, will ultimately do nothing for one's skill in rhetoric and, indeed, may dumb you down so much, you will not be very good at making more complex arguments with folks who haven't shut down the intellectual processes to make room for their gods.

I completely agree with Dawkins that those who engage the Creationists are actually giving them a platform. You could probably search the archives and find conversations with Stahrwe from a couple of years back and compare it with one of the current conversations and what you'll find is that nothing has changed. You guys are making the same arguments (and the same denials) over and over again. Think about the impression that this may leave on some of BT's guests. Some folks might come on BookTalk and stay for awhile, reading some of those ongoing religion threads. They very well may leave with the impression that Creationists must have legitimate arguments in favor of a 6,000-year-old earth (and all the rationalizations that go with it). Why else would these obviously intelligent people be arguing with them?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
DWill, hey_you, Robert Tulip, Saffron
Sat May 28, 2011 2:33 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4180
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1141
Thanked: 1200 times in 902 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
The devastating review of Gould that Dawkins discusses is available at http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/gould.html

Gould was a great populizer of evolutionary thought, but made several massive errors. He argues that genes are the bookkeepers of evolution while species are the causal agents, where in fact the truth is the reverse. His theory of punctuated equilibrium is properly described as 'pushing at an open door', claiming great insight for something that is obvious, ie the changing pace of evolution. Dawkins makes the key point that the units of evolution are replicators, such as genes or memes. Species and organisms are not replicators in this precise sense of copy-fidelity, in that the thing that is replicated in heredity is the gene, not the whole organism.

On the matter of creationists and their efforts to stir up division, the review points to Dawkins' observation that his difference with Gould on punctuated equilibrium is rather as if the claim that the Jews took 40 years to get from Egypt to Israel under Moses means they moved at one yard per hour, and that this slow pace is somehow a criticism of the entire story. It is rather obvious that if they took that long (taking the story at face value) then they stopped along the way. It is similarly obvious that evolution has long periods of slow change with short periods of massive change.



The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
DWill
Sat May 28, 2011 11:15 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4949
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1084
Thanked: 1048 times in 818 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
geo wrote:
Those of us who teach English Composition sometimes worry about getting a "tin ear" by having to read so much writing that is frankly almost never very good and frequently terrible. Some of my fellow adjuncts actually worry about how this may effect their own writing and, indeed, apparently there are studies that back them up. (I haven't seen the studies myself).

I can imagine that arguing with creationists, besides being a complete waste of time, will ultimately do nothing for one's skill in rhetoric and, indeed, may dumb you down so much, you will not be very good at making more complex arguments with folks who haven't shut down the intellectual processes to make room for their gods.

I completely agree with Dawkins that those who engage the Creationists are actually giving them a platform. You could probably search the archives and find conversations with Stahrwe from a couple of years back and compare it with one of the current conversations and what you'll find is that nothing has changed. You guys are making the same arguments (and the same denials) over and over again. Think about the impression that this may leave on some of BT's guests. Some folks might come on BookTalk and stay for awhile, reading some of those ongoing religion threads. They very well may leave with the impression that Creationists must have legitimate arguments in favor of a 6,000-year-old earth (and all the rationalizations that go with it). Why else would these obviously intelligent people be arguing with them?

Geo is absolutely right about this. I've come more to realize the truth of it lately. The two sides are too different to have any real debate discussion, or argument, and so they shouldn't. If this sounds as though I'm saying there is some kind of parity between the sides, I'm not. I believe that, whatever we call the opposite side, it is deeply wrong about nearly everything it holds true. But we can in this case deflect the inevitable charge of bias from the creationist camp. We can just observe that for any profitable discussion or debate to occur, there needs to be some commonality between the sides. This isn't the popular image of debate, but it's true, if we care about 'profitable.' When the sides don't share the same base assumption, the last thing that should happen is for the two to come together to talk. The conditions aren't right and may never be. The result will be a massive waste of time and effort such as geo has cited.

I sense geo hinting at a pact not to get into it with creationists/fundamentalists. I'll sign up.


_________________
Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun.

Clifford Geertz


Last edited by DWill on Sun May 29, 2011 4:35 am, edited 1 time in total.



Sun May 29, 2011 4:19 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Post count, I stab at thee!

BookTalk.org Moderator

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3307
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1238
Thanked: 983 times in 723 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
I engage in a lot of creationist debate, and i think its an important thing to do.

Not to try to convince creationists that they are wrong, because that isn't possible. But to shine the light on the absurdity of what they say. To bring that gnarled, mashed thing out of the cellar and shine a light on it. Dry up all that goo and let people see the horrid thing for what it is.

I know i won't ever convince stahrwe he's lived his whole life for a lie, and i am not really trying to do that. I want fence-sitters everywhere to take note of what passes for argument from a creationist and let them see the stupidity of it all before they get drawn into belief to the point that they no longer are ABLE to see the stupidity of it.


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?


Sun May 29, 2011 10:49 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Unbound and Learned

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3176
Location: NC
Thanks: 1065
Thanked: 1136 times in 856 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
DWill wrote:
I sense geo hinting at a pact not to get into it with creationists/fundamentalists. I'll sign up.


johnson1010 wrote:
I engage in a lot of creationist debate, and i think its an important thing to do.


Obviously it's a personal decision. I have thought about it and decided not to bother any more. Dawkins makes a very good argument that merely engaging Creationists gives them an appearance of legitimacy. We all know that behind every Creationist argument is a rationalization and promotion of a literal Biblical worldview. I personally don't want to give that air time on a public forum. I don't want to give the Creationist the illusion that he's being taken seriously.

Also, I do find it rather depressing to find myself thinking in terms of how to frame my arguments with respect to the Creationist worldview. We do take into account our audience, even if we're just posting on an online forum. And if we perceive that our most critical audience members will attack this point and that point, we will start to anticipate those points. In the good old days we took it for granted that the world is billions of years old and that the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution and that everybody knows that. But now every time I read a bit of science news, I find myself thinking: what would Joe Creationist think of that? Or how would Joe Creationist respond to that? The bottom line is that it really bothers me that people actually believe this stuff. But have I dumbed down my thinking to take into account those who actually believe the earth is 6,000 years old? If so, I am losing something in the bargain. I choose not to do it any more.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Sun May 29, 2011 3:39 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Masters


Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 467
Thanks: 25
Thanked: 29 times in 28 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
I agree with the OP, ignore them they are going to evenually find out their wrong anyway.



Sun May 29, 2011 3:54 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Devoted Member


Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 99
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 18 times in 17 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom (uk)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
I completely agree with the OP. Just let them have their beliefs and don't take their bait. If they are so ignorant to evolution and do not respect evolution as a whole why bother coming to a section of a website that deals with evolution and get into pointless debates. What do these creationists hope to accomplish? I just ignore them now, and I propose the idea that everyone else does as well.


Religious fundamentalists rely on masses of scriptures and fallacious reasoning with circular arguments.

Science relies upon nothing. Everything relies upon science.


_________________
It's a scary night in the lonesome October


Mon May 30, 2011 5:47 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Banned

Banned

Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 94
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 4 times in 4 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
I believe the Universe was created I don't go around proselytising because I do not belong to any religion. I find that Atheist are a little on the disingenuous side, they want to create the false impression that All scientists agree that Evolution is the only answer this is not true.
Add to the fact that scientists who do hold to the hypothesis and you will invariably find they are holding to the false Newtonian Mechanistic paradigm. Maybe. its more to do with maintaing the ideology of Materialism than any thing else.
At the end of the day you will be shown the error of your ways the hubris of man knows no bounds. Which is why they are systematically destroying the earth.



Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:02 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Comandante Literario Supreme w/ Cheese


Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2853
Thanks: 506
Thanked: 376 times in 321 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
DWill wrote:
geo wrote:
Those of us who teach English Composition sometimes worry about getting a "tin ear" by having to read so much writing that is frankly almost never very good and frequently terrible. Some of my fellow adjuncts actually worry about how this may effect their own writing and, indeed, apparently there are studies that back them up. (I haven't seen the studies myself).

I can imagine that arguing with creationists, besides being a complete waste of time, will ultimately do nothing for one's skill in rhetoric and, indeed, may dumb you down so much, you will not be very good at making more complex arguments with folks who haven't shut down the intellectual processes to make room for their gods.

I completely agree with Dawkins that those who engage the Creationists are actually giving them a platform. You could probably search the archives and find conversations with Stahrwe from a couple of years back and compare it with one of the current conversations and what you'll find is that nothing has changed. You guys are making the same arguments (and the same denials) over and over again. Think about the impression that this may leave on some of BT's guests. Some folks might come on BookTalk and stay for awhile, reading some of those ongoing religion threads. They very well may leave with the impression that Creationists must have legitimate arguments in favor of a 6,000-year-old earth (and all the rationalizations that go with it). Why else would these obviously intelligent people be arguing with them?

Geo is absolutely right about this. I've come more to realize the truth of it lately. The two sides are too different to have any real debate discussion, or argument, and so they shouldn't. If this sounds as though I'm saying there is some kind of parity between the sides, I'm not. I believe that, whatever we call the opposite side, it is deeply wrong about nearly everything it holds true. But we can in this case deflect the inevitable charge of bias from the creationist camp. We can just observe that for any profitable discussion or debate to occur, there needs to be some commonality between the sides. This isn't the popular image of debate, but it's true, if we care about 'profitable.' When the sides don't share the same base assumption, the last thing that should happen is for the two to come together to talk. The conditions aren't right and may never be. The result will be a massive waste of time and effort such as geo has cited.

I sense geo hinting at a pact not to get into it with creationists/fundamentalists. I'll sign up.


No commonality exists between science and religion?
None whatsoever?


_________________
The algorithm dun it

The meme dun everything else after


Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:07 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Unbound and Learned

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3176
Location: NC
Thanks: 1065
Thanked: 1136 times in 856 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
ant wrote:

No commonality exists between science and religion?
None whatsoever?


Don't miss the context. We're not talking about religion in such a broad sense. We're talking about creationism which is a fringe subset. A creationist starts with the premise that the Bible is literally true and that the world is thousands of years old. This is willful ignorance of evidence that is the basis of much of our scientific knowledge. Within that context, there's really no commonality between the two sides.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:29 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Comandante Literario Supreme w/ Cheese


Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2853
Thanks: 506
Thanked: 376 times in 321 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
Understood

Do you believe science and religion share some common aspects?


_________________
The algorithm dun it

The meme dun everything else after


Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:37 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 13996
Location: Florida
Thanks: 1978
Thanked: 760 times in 604 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)
Highscores: 8

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
Mr Erickson65 wrote:
I believe the Universe was created


Where is the evidence?

Mr Erickson65 wrote:
I don't go around proselytising because I do not belong to any religion.


You don't have to formally attend church services to be of a certain religion. To be a Christian all you have to do is accept the Bible as the word of God and Jesus as the son of God who died on the cross for your sins. Go to church or not people that accept the Christian Bible are Christians. Christianity is a world religion. Individual Christian churches are denominations. And your sentence doesn't make sense even without the claim that you don't belong to a religion. All members of all religion don't proselytize.

Mr Erickson65 wrote:
I find that Atheist are a little on the disingenuous side, they want to create the false impression that All scientists agree that Evolution is the only answer this is not true.


You're either brand new to this topic or just making stuff up.

It is unfair and inaccurate to claim that all atheists argue anything specifically about evolution. All you know about atheists is that they lack the belief in a God or gods. Nothing more. Some atheists believe life arrived on our planet because of transpermia. Some believe aliens brought life here purposely. Some think evolution is nonsense. Some are complete idiots and just wanted to join a group of some sort. All atheists don't think alike and you don't have the evidence to argue that all of them are disingenuous. This is a biased and ignorant statement.

The fact is MOST scientists (not "all") are atheists and MOST scientists accept biological evolution as the theory that best explains the geological and fossil and genetic evidence we see. So now that I have made a claim you have the right to demand evidence. Fortunately, I have it. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm Numerous studies and surveys have been done to support the idea that science education and belief in gods are inversely proportional. Yes, some scientists don't agree with the majority. I ran the numbers last year and I believe it was 700 that accept evolution for every 1 that doesn't. This means that scientists that don't accept evolution are statistical outliers or extremely rare. I'd have to search BookTalk.org for the post I made that had the source for these numbers.

So the point is you're wrong about atheists if you want to argue that ALL atheists think ALL scientists agree with evolution. You would be accurate if you said MOST atheists think MOST scientists accept evolution. There is a significant difference between these two claims. The way you said it atheists are complete idiots. The correct wording shows atheists are educated.



The following user would like to thank Chris OConnor for this post:
GreggMattson
Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:27 pm
Profile Email YIM WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Comandante Literario Supreme w/ Cheese


Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2853
Thanks: 506
Thanked: 376 times in 321 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave
Chris OConnor wrote:
Mr Erickson65 wrote:
I believe the Universe was created


Where is the evidence?

Mr Erickson65 wrote:
I don't go around proselytising because I do not belong to any religion.


You don't have to formally attend church services to be of a certain religion. To be a Christian all you have to do is accept the Bible as the word of God and Jesus as the son of God who died on the cross for your sins. Go to church or not people that accept the Christian Bible are Christians. Christianity is a world religion. Individual Christian churches are denominations. And your sentence doesn't make sense even without the claim that you don't belong to a religion. All members of all religion don't proselytize.

Mr Erickson65 wrote:
I find that Atheist are a little on the disingenuous side, they want to create the false impression that All scientists agree that Evolution is the only answer this is not true.





Science puts the onus on religion to prove the existence of an intelligence that is responsible for the creation if the universe and consciousness. So be it.

However, science has yet to explain the ORIGIN of life. It (science) can only explain in fragments the processes involved in the development of life.

Score:

Religion = 0
Science = 0

Quote:

You're either brand new to this topic or just making stuff up.

It is unfair and inaccurate to claim that all atheists argue anything specifically about evolution. All you know about atheists is that they lack the belief in a God or gods. Nothing more. Some atheists believe life arrived on our planet because of transpermia. Some believe aliens brought life here purposely. Some think evolution is nonsense. Some are complete idiots and just wanted to join a group of some sort. All atheists don't think alike and you don't have the evidence to argue that all of them are disingenuous. This is a biased and ignorant statement.

The fact is MOST scientists (not "all") are atheists and MOST scientists accept biological evolution as the theory that best explains the geological and fossil and genetic evidence we see. So now that I have made a claim you have the right to demand evidence. Fortunately, I have it. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm Numerous studies and surveys have been done to support the idea that science education and belief in gods are inversely proportional. Yes, some scientists don't agree with the majority. I ran the numbers last year and I believe it was 700 that accept evolution for every 1 that doesn't. This means that scientists that don't accept evolution are statistical outliers or extremely rare. I'd have to search BookTalk.org for the post I made that had the source for these numbers.


So the point is you're wrong about atheists if you want to argue that ALL atheists think ALL scientists agree with evolution. You would be accurate if you said MOST atheists think MOST scientists accept evolution. There is a significant difference between these two claims. The way you said it atheists are complete idiots. The correct wording shows atheists are educated.


_________________
The algorithm dun it

The meme dun everything else after


Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:25 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:


BookTalk.org Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Featured Book Suggestions
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
    

Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.

Featured Books

Books by New Authors



Booktalk.org on Facebook 



BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSBOOKSTRANSCRIPTSOLD FORUMSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY

BOOK FORUMS FOR ALL BOOKS WE HAVE DISCUSSED
Sense and Goodness Without God - by Richard CarrierFrankenstein - by Mary ShelleyThe Big Questions - by Simon BlackburnScience Was Born of Christianity - by Stacy TrasancosThe Happiness Hypothesis - by Jonathan HaidtA Game of Thrones - by George R. R. MartinTempesta's Dream - by Vincent LoCocoWhy Nations Fail - by Daron Acemoglu and James RobinsonThe Drowning Girl - Caitlin R. KiernanThe Consolations of the Forest - by Sylvain TessonThe Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion: The Mormons - by David FitzgeraldA Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - by James JoyceThe Divine Comedy - by Dante AlighieriThe Magic of Reality - by Richard DawkinsDubliners - by James JoyceMy Name Is Red - by Orhan PamukThe World Until Yesterday - by Jared DiamondThe Man Who Was Thursday - by by G. K. ChestertonThe Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven PinkerLord Jim by Joseph ConradThe Hobbit by J. R. R. TolkienThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas AdamsAtlas Shrugged by Ayn RandThinking, Fast and Slow - by Daniel KahnemanThe Righteous Mind - by Jonathan HaidtWorld War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max BrooksMoby Dick: or, the Whale by Herman MelvilleA Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer EganLost Memory of Skin: A Novel by Russell BanksThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. KuhnHobbes: Leviathan by Thomas HobbesThe House of the Spirits - by Isabel AllendeArguably: Essays by Christopher HitchensThe Falls: A Novel (P.S.) by Joyce Carol OatesChrist in Egypt by D.M. MurdockThe Glass Bead Game: A Novel by Hermann HesseA Devil's Chaplain by Richard DawkinsThe Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph CampbellThe Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor DostoyevskyThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark TwainThe Moral Landscape by Sam HarrisThe Decameron by Giovanni BoccaccioThe Road by Cormac McCarthyThe Grand Design by Stephen HawkingThe Evolution of God by Robert WrightThe Tin Drum by Gunter GrassGood Omens by Neil GaimanPredictably Irrational by Dan ArielyThe Wind-Up Bird Chronicle: A Novel by Haruki MurakamiALONE: Orphaned on the Ocean by Richard Logan & Tere Duperrault FassbenderDon Quixote by Miguel De CervantesMusicophilia by Oliver SacksDiary of a Madman and Other Stories by Nikolai GogolThe Passion of the Western Mind by Richard TarnasThe Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le GuinThe Genius of the Beast by Howard BloomAlice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll Empire of Illusion by Chris HedgesThe Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner The Extended Phenotype by Richard DawkinsSmoke and Mirrors by Neil GaimanThe Selfish Gene by Richard DawkinsWhen Good Thinking Goes Bad by Todd C. RinioloHouse of Leaves by Mark Z. DanielewskiAmerican Gods: A Novel by Neil GaimanPrimates and Philosophers by Frans de WaalThe Enormous Room by E.E. CummingsThe Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar WildeGod Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher HitchensThe Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco Dreams From My Father by Barack Obama Paradise Lost by John Milton Bad Money by Kevin PhillipsThe Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson BurnettGodless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan BarkerThe Things They Carried by Tim O'BrienThe Limits of Power by Andrew BacevichLolita by Vladimir NabokovOrlando by Virginia Woolf On Being Certain by Robert A. Burton50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. HarrisonWalden: Or, Life in the Woods by Henry David ThoreauExile and the Kingdom by Albert CamusOur Inner Ape by Frans de WaalYour Inner Fish by Neil ShubinNo Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthyThe Age of American Unreason by Susan JacobyTen Theories of Human Nature by Leslie Stevenson & David HabermanHeart of Darkness by Joseph ConradThe Stuff of Thought by Stephen PinkerA Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled HosseiniThe Lucifer Effect by Philip ZimbardoResponsibility and Judgment by Hannah ArendtInterventions by Noam ChomskyGodless in America by George A. RickerReligious Expression and the American Constitution by Franklyn S. HaimanDeep Economy by Phil McKibbenThe God Delusion by Richard DawkinsThe Third Chimpanzee by Jared DiamondThe Woman in the Dunes by Abe KoboEvolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie C. ScottThe Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael PollanI, Claudius by Robert GravesBreaking The Spell by Daniel C. DennettA Peace to End All Peace by David FromkinThe Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey NiffeneggerThe End of Faith by Sam HarrisEnder's Game by Orson Scott CardThe Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark HaddonValue and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. WielenbergThe March by E. L DoctorowThe Ethical Brain by Michael GazzanigaFreethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan JacobyCollapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared DiamondThe Battle for God by Karen ArmstrongThe Future of Life by Edward O. WilsonWhat is Good? by A. C. GraylingCivilization and Its Enemies by Lee HarrisPale Blue Dot by Carl SaganHow We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael ShermerLooking for Spinoza by Antonio DamasioLies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al FrankenThe Red Queen by Matt RidleyThe Blank Slate by Stephen PinkerUnweaving the Rainbow by Richard DawkinsAtheism: A Reader edited by S.T. JoshiGlobal Brain by Howard BloomThe Lucifer Principle by Howard BloomGuns, Germs and Steel by Jared DiamondThe Demon-Haunted World by Carl SaganBury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee BrownFuture Shock by Alvin Toffler

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOur Amazon.com SalesMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism BooksFACTS Book Selections

cron
Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2014. All rights reserved.
Website developed by MidnightCoder.ca
Display Pagerank