geo wrote:Good point. But I still feel I'm off topic by asking this question:

Is anyone planning on reading this book?

I'd be glad to read the book. I just can't afford it at the moment. I'm a broke college student trying to finish buying Christmas gifts for the family. Plus I have a ton of good books I need to finish reading before I do any more binge book buying.

geo wrote:

DWill wrote:Just so we're clear on this point: Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart has nothing to do with the sort of take-no-prisoners discussion we're seeing here about religion. No one should shy away from the book thinking it's just more of the same.

Good point. But I still feel I'm off topic by asking this question:

Is anyone planning on reading this book?

I have read 30% of the book on kindle. I like it and recommend it. It is a simple and clear and sound introduction to scientific ontology. Its presentation of ten 'non-commandments' begins with principles for sound thinking, not commandments.

I don't know what DWill meant by a 'take-no-prisoners' discussion. It is entirely possible to take a hard line on scientific ontology while having a courteous and respectful attitude towards spirituality and faith.

"I don't know what DWill meant by a 'take-no-prisoners' discussion. It is entirely possible to take a hard line on scientific ontology while having a courteous and respectful attitude towards spirituality and faith."

Not with you it aint, Robert.

DWill, the most neutral and fair minded person here on BT has pointed at your "take no prisoners" approach.
in a very cordial manner, of course.

you pretend to want to be courteous and respectful of others, but your not.
anyone can check the record and look at how you treated Stawhre.
you would bash and accuse him of being a troll when he was clearly not.
Flann as well.

I understand and accept your treatment of me. Ive earned it.
but those two never have
you have and always will be a condescending militant atheist toward anyone who doesnt agree with your atheist propaganda
You are a law unto yourself.

I will continue to call you out whenever you speak with no evidence to back your propaganda up.
You consistently misrepresent science in the most foul manner.

I will not give ground to your bullying tactics.

Ps.

You are ethically lacking in my post to you because your words mean nothing in the real world.

I do maintain a courteous attitude towards faith and spirituality where people have an honest learning attitude, but not towards people who oppose modern thought in favour of a return to medieval superstition, or who treat the Ten Commandments as a thin veneer for justifying racial prejudice.

Contrary to creationist dogma, faith does not have to mean superstition. But some trolls find that concept hard to understand.

Please link us to where these people wish society would return to medieval superstition.

By the way, Robert. Your whig history tactics are easy to spot.
You either intentionally spread whig history around here on BT or you are simply ignorant of history.
Im believe it's both.

The atheist meme you carry in your head has mutated into something much more than a lack of belief.
Your is an intolerant ideology that is ultimately limp in the real world.

Show me where someone wishes to return to a medieval period.
That is more presumptuous stupidity from you.

Prejudice comes in many forms Robert.
Yours is just as wrong.

Luckily, your brand of mutated lack of belief has been a total non factor in the development of culture.

You know why?
Because people like you can never actually leave their basement and commit to getting their hands dirty in the real world.

If you are comparing the personal beliefs of Flann and other theists who have contributed to book talk to medieval superstition , I unquestionably compare your lack of belief to the ideologies of Stalin and Mao.

The propaganda war those two used to attack theism is just like yours.
Dont start crying when I start.

ant wrote:Please link us to where these people wish society would return to medieval superstition.

ant wrote: http://www.booktalk.org/post133237.html#p133237 By the way,

In the name of science, you actually should be THANKING a scientist like Behe for contributing to the ongoing discussion of this field of science

Whether or not you disagree with Behe is irrelevant.

"Behe is best known for his argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which argues that some biochemical structures are too complex to be adequately explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore more probably the result of intelligent design." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

That is medieval. Disagreement with Behe is relevant. Promoting him is trolling for Christendom.

And then check this delightful comment

ant wrote: http://www.booktalk.org/post134064.html#p134064

Dexter wrote:Geo was generously trying to salvage some of your piss poor logic,

Go screw your self, anti-creationist. Geo was speaking narrowly. I presented it panoramically. It's not a religious conflict. It's a particular brand of fundamentalism that's in conflict.

Robert Tulip wrote:

My own reasoning focuses on biological complexity as the foundation of the good. I maintain that this premise is able to engage with evidence in a coherent way. But if your premise is that inequality is the root of all evil, you will fail to see that sometimes inequalitycan be rationally justified, and you will be blind to relevant evidence.

Here is wiki's entry and the nobel peace prize recipient and Christian Martin Luther King Jr.
As a Christian, according to you, he held medieval superstitious beliefs.
Is that fair to say?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

Can you rationally justify for us all that this man's superstitious beliefs made him unequal?

Stalin and Mao, both rejectors of superstitious religious beliefs declared people of religion as unequal.
Was it justified, Robert?

By the way, comparing your intellect to MLK's is like comparing a pile of dung to a steak dinner.

Sorry, I missed the bit where Martin Luther King said that proponents of intelligent design should be thanked for their contribution to science, as ant has said in the medievalist post I linked above. As far as I can tell, King was a good example of a rational Christian.

Even worse, ant's amazing effort to enlist Martin Luther King in his covert campaign for creationism is utterly rebutted by Dr King himself: see this great article http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rel ... 8033/posts

And ant's repugnant and false comparison of me to Stalin and Mao is further reason why ant deserves no respect and is sullying the name of Christianity.

ant wrote:Stalin and Mao, both rejectors of superstitious religious beliefs declared people of religion as unequal. Was it justified, Robert? By the way, comparing your intellect to MLK's is like comparing a pile of dung to a steak dinner.

Slop clean up again..

Im interested in who exactly do you believe is unequal.
Unequal to who? You? Atheists? People that lack belief?

What exactly does unequal mean?
How does biological complexity create inequality in a human being?

Here is what you wrote to Flann:

"Yes, exactly right. And the agenda I try to share with Richard Dawkins is to promote an accurate scientific understanding of reality, and to expose the false delusions of traditional religion. By contrast your foolish agenda is to promote error."

Are you saying here Flann is delusional and therefor unequal to you and someone like Dawkins?

Your hateful bigotry is showing here.

MLK was motivated by his belief in God and made reality better for people once considered unequal.
Whos contribution to reality has been greater to date - Dawkins or King?

Youre be becoming transparent joke here now.