Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:21 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next
Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being 
Author Message
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
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4576
Location: NC
Thanks: 2019
Thanked: 2077 times in 1550 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Ant,

Dawkins wears many hats. He's a scientist and an author and a communicator. Here he was invited as a speaker to address the audience at the New Yorker Festival. This wasn't a scientific symposium. My point is that he's communicating an idea and it would be inappropriate in this context to walk the audience through every piece of evidence in making his larger point. No science lecturer would do this.

Evolution takes place over many eons, and many people have a difficult time envisioning how the process works. There is no point during the long evolutionary process that we can stop and say, here's where man appears. Dawkins, a master science communicator, has found a very elegant way to conceptualize this idea.

By hyperfocusing on the esoteria, you are somehow completely missing the point.

ant wrote:
It's Dawkins' OPINION that EBNS is a definitive explanation for the origin of Man. It is not an established scientific fact, it is not a testable scientific hypothesis, by definition. Dawkins is disseminating an opinion and dressing it up as scientific fact.


OMG, I think we're finally getting somewhere. So you're not convinced that humans evolved from lower life forms? Is that what you're saying?

The evidence says that life emerged first in the oceans and we evolved from these lower life forms. As far as I know this is not in dispute in the scientific community, not even a smidgeon. Dawkins, an accomplished and credible scientist, isn't just idly speculating. All of his assumptions here are all based on very real evidence. No scientist would ever describe evolution by natural selection as an opinion.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
johnson1010
Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:07 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor


Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3564
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1152 times in 844 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
So, ant is saying evolution for everything, except humans.

Who were magically... created... by ah...

He's not a creationist.


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

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

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

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?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:55 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5925
Thanks: 1379
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
johnson1010 wrote:
Quote:
Hypothesis proposed by science.

Evolution, as a proposed explanation for the origin of species, including homo sapiens… Evolution MUST be testable if it is to be considered a scientific hypothesis, EFFIN’ PERIOD!!


Evolution is a theory. A scientific theory, not like somebody’s theory of “who keeps drinking my soda at work”.

In order for it to be science it needs to be falsifiable. To be falsifiable it needs to make definite predictions which can either agree with reality, or disagree. You failed to indicate what it is you think evolution says should happen, so I will now outline some of those things in this post, and how they could be disproven, but have not...



You win



Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:16 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5925
Thanks: 1379
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
geo wrote:
Ant,

Dawkins wears many hats. He's a scientist and an author and a communicator. Here he was invited as a speaker to address the audience at the New Yorker Festival. This wasn't a scientific symposium. My point is that he's communicating an idea and it would be inappropriate in this context to walk the audience through every piece of evidence in making his larger point. No science lecturer would do this.

Evolution takes place over many eons, and many people have a difficult time envisioning how the process works. There is no point during the long evolutionary process that we can stop and say, here's where man appears. Dawkins, a master science communicator, has found a very elegant way to conceptualize this idea.

By hyperfocusing on the esoteria, you are somehow completely missing the point.

ant wrote:
It's Dawkins' OPINION that EBNS is a definitive explanation for the origin of Man. It is not an established scientific fact, it is not a testable scientific hypothesis, by definition. Dawkins is disseminating an opinion and dressing it up as scientific fact.


OMG, I think we're finally getting somewhere. So you're not convinced that humans evolved from lower life forms? Is that what you're saying?

The evidence says that life emerged first in the oceans and we evolved from these lower life forms. As far as I know this is not in dispute in the scientific community, not even a smidgeon. Dawkins, an accomplished and credible scientist, isn't just idly speculating. All of his assumptions here are all based on very real evidence. No scientist would ever describe evolution by natural selection as an opinion.


You win



Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:18 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5925
Thanks: 1379
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
johnson1010 wrote:
So, ant is saying evolution for everything, except humans.

Who were magically... created... by ah...

He's not a creationist.



And you are an anti-religious bigot.



Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:18 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 membership
Tenured Professor


Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3564
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1152 times in 844 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
I feel so ashamed of myself.

I suppose i will have to console myself by not caring about that comment in the least.


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

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

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

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?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


The following user would like to thank johnson1010 for this post:
youkrst
Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:30 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor


Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3564
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1152 times in 844 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
i do wonder why you give up there, though...

isn't my post exactly what you were looking for?

If you are actually interested in learning, and not just arguing with us over some vague notion of spirituality, you could look all this stuff up yourself and satisfy yourself of the truth.


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

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

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

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?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:33 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5925
Thanks: 1379
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Quote:
If you are actually interested in learning, and not just arguing with us over some vague notion of spirituality, you could look all this stuff up yourself and satisfy yourself of the truth.


You are an embarrassment to what it means to be a moderator.

What is this idiotic claim of yours that I was arguing here about a "notion of spirituality"?
Not only are you an embarrassment, but you are also resorting to lies.
Hence, you are an embarrassing liar.

Now go ahead and spend some time fueling up your resident atheist troll.
I'm certain he will say something stupid in the next few hours. Something you will support (by looking the other way), all while threatening to ban me.
You are most secure in an echo chamber with a simpleton that cheers you on and ridicules theists.



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
Robert Tulip, youkrst
Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:49 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
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4576
Location: NC
Thanks: 2019
Thanked: 2077 times in 1550 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
ant wrote:
It's Dawkins' OPINION that EBNS is a definitive explanation for the origin of Man. It is not an established scientific fact, it is not a testable scientific hypothesis, by definition. Dawkins is disseminating an opinion and dressing it up as scientific fact.

geo wrote:
OMG, I think we're finally getting somewhere. So you're not convinced that humans evolved from lower life forms? Is that what you're saying?
The evidence says that life emerged first in the oceans and we evolved from these lower life forms. As far as I know this is not in dispute in the scientific community, not even a smidgeon. Dawkins, an accomplished and credible scientist, isn't just idly speculating. All of his assumptions here are all based on very real evidence. No scientist would ever describe evolution by natural selection as an opinion.

ant wrote:
You win


I'm not trying to win, merely trying to figure where you're coming from. It's frankly amazing that it took this long for you to concede that you don't accept the evidence for evolution, at least not in terms of human evolution. This is where we diverge, of course. We can agree to disagree.

No wonder you had such a problem with the fish. It all makes sense now.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:18 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5925
Thanks: 1379
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Quote:
It's frankly amazing that it took this long for you to concede that you don't accept the evidence for evolution, at least not in terms of human evolution


I'll have to check what is making you claim the above because that's not my position at all.

I don't know about you, but i'm seriously mutlitasking this atheist dogpile.
Most of the time I am.

But fine, whatever. I'll check when I have more time that I do now.

Thanks, Geo. I appreciate you sharing your opinion. Some of the things you share I agree with, others I don't.



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
geo
Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:24 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
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4576
Location: NC
Thanks: 2019
Thanked: 2077 times in 1550 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
ant wrote:
Quote:
It's frankly amazing that it took this long for you to concede that you don't accept the evidence for evolution, at least not in terms of human evolution


I'll have to check what is making you claim the above because that's not my position at all.

I don't know about you, but i'm seriously mutlitasking this atheist dogpile.
Most of the time I am.

But fine, whatever. I'll check when I have more time that I do now.

Thanks, Geo. I appreciate you sharing your opinion. Some of the things you share I agree with, others I don't.


Please, we're so close. You said: "It's Dawkins' OPINION that EBNS is a definitive explanation for the origin of Man."

So do you agree or disagree with this statement. Humans evolved from simpler life forms, according to the vast preponderance of scientific evidence.

Just be honest. I'm not going to throw it back in your face.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:40 pm
Profile
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 membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5981
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2406
Thanked: 2346 times in 1773 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
ant wrote:
not my position


:mrgreen:

Ant said "it is not an established scientific fact [that] evolution by natural selection is a definitive explanation for the origin of Man."

Now ant says it is "not my position at all" that he doesn't accept the evidence for evolution.

Worth a thank. Makes me laugh.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:51 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5925
Thanks: 1379
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Robert Tulip wrote:
ant wrote:
not my position


:mrgreen:

Ant said "it is not an established scientific fact [that] evolution by natural selection is a definitive explanation for the origin of Man."

Now ant says it is "not my position at all" that he doesn't accept the evidence for evolution.

Worth a thank. Makes me laugh.


As I said before, I mostly multitask you atheists while I work.
For your information, in the States, most of us earn our keep by working 40 hours a week.
This isn't a nanny state (yet).
Perhaps you've got more time to sit around and respond all day.
I don't.

My primary contention here is/was how Dawkins is saying what he's saying and what constitutes "fact" as claimed by science (and Dawkins). It's a point that is not receiving direct response. Instead, my personal belief system is under soft attack.
It's as if you atheists want a mini Scopes trial each time a believer steps in to share his thoughts.

And so what if I were a Creationist? What then?
Do you want creationists to be gathered up and sent to some "rehabilitation" camp?

What planet are you from?

Here in America it is illiberal NOT to value autonomy. It is illiberal NOT to value free conscience. And it is CRIMINAL to persecute someone for their religious beliefs.
True liberals support the exchanging of ideas in the public square. The public square is a forum to even out differences, to find common ground, and to encourage future participation by all citizens, regardless of political and religious persuasions.
We understand that because we are a people of great diversity, including religious diversity, we accept that some people will be influenced by their faith. We support that, and of course, speak out against it when it threatens to do harm to others.

You do not discourage me with your pompous know-it-all, knowledge snobbery, Robert.
Actually, your inability to respect other people's worldviews worries me that one day you will fly your ideological plane into my house.



Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:35 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
All Star Member


Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 138
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 22 times in 20 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
johnson1010 wrote:
Quote:
Souls come with the formation of each individual human being. Souls are unique to each person and cannot be reincarnated into another body because each body has its own unique soul and no two souls can occupy the same body at the same time. If it could happen it would result in what we used to call "possession" but now call "schizophrenia", "multiple personalities", but it's still just one person's mind.



How can you talk about souls as though you know anything about them? Souls have never been demonstrated to exist. There is literally no fact that can be said about a soul, other than that which was said in fiction which is known to be the creation of human imagination.

Please. No more of this irrational atheist bullshit posted again. When you can post a natural physiologically explanation that answers why our human brains have evolved to experience and process spiritual activity when you atheist claim it is nothing but imagination, then you can give your spiel but it's been months now and no answer given that can possibly explain complex religious experiences including one's involving SPIRIT influence and spiritual knowledge about souls. After you've satisfactorily answered that question, and no fudging with atheist approval, got to be OK'd by theistic scrutiny too, you have to answer why there's 40,000+ years of evidence of human beings having such spiritual experiences and building their whole societies around such experiences. After that you have to answer why there are tens of thousands of N.D.E.'s with no sign of stopping. You have to be able to go up to a person who's had an n.d.e. and tell them to their face that it was all in their imagination. No real at all. And do this to hundreds of such people to get a good sampling of actual responses to your crazy atheist in denial idea that such things are purely imagination. DENIAL of Facts= fundamentalist belief system and that's your atheist one that just refuses to look at or seriously consider the ramifications of thousands upon thousands of human reports of spiritual experiences. Just end it. No theist will ever buy into atheist irrationality re spiritual phenomena.

Quote:
… I have no idea what is going on soul-wise with those examples you cite that are exceptions to Sonoman's Official Biomystical Archonic rule of each body having its own unique soul to animate it.


This is better. You really do have no idea and that is the honest thing to say. But knowing this, how can you so confidently tell us what is happening with regular people? How would you distinguish somebody with a soul which follows your arbitrarily decided rules, and somebody who consumed their twin in utero who otherwise shows no outward sign?

Seeing as there is no evidentiary footing for your initial claims about the soul to body ratio, how is it more difficult for you to fabricate a rule about conjoined twins? Anything you say about the status of their souls will be equally arbitrary and without reference to the physical world.

Given evolution, how do you distinguish which of our ancestor was the first to acquire a soul? Given that we know that it’s the brain, a physical object, which is responsible for the behavior of humans, what makes you think souls have anything to do with it, other than the fictional stories I mentioned above?


I have experienced spiritual revelation. You haven't. When you talk about spiritual phenomena you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. It's the perennial error in logic of atheists to think they can tell people who are not spiritually disabled what their experiences are. It happened that in my very first religious conversion experience I was given Gnosis, knowledge of God, about n.d.e.s and there's no reason for me not to trust this knowledge over anything any atheist could say since atheists cannot begin to explain any of my spiritual experiences. Logic alone informs the objective observer that something is going on that isn't explainable by ordinary science or psychological theories, when n.d.e.s happen with enough frequency that the idea of Heaven and an afterlife never fades away from human consciousness--despite over a hundred years of science "debunking" religion. As if those without knowledge or experience in spiritual consciousness could ever tell those who do have it anything of value except as marking the general overall ignorance of the atheist and scientific collective to spiritual reality.

And please note: I am fully aware of the cultural influence on n.d.e'. If you read the Gospel of Humanity you'd know why this is, what it means when mentality creates reality.

But I say these things here and know it all goes in one side of the atheist brain and not out the other so nothing is learned except now my posts add to the growing number of Biomystic, Arielmessenger, Sonoman, posted information on the Internet where Google picks up these posts of mine on various discussion forums. Because I've been posting for years now my posts and website info are usually at the top of first page of search without me spending a dime for search engine assistance or publishing a book the usual way. This is why I can withstand the barrage of hostile critics here--it all adds to my outreach program and that's the important thing since I know I won't be turning any atheist fundamentalist mindsets here. But then I don't need to, to get my points across to others following the thread topics.



Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:09 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
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4576
Location: NC
Thanks: 2019
Thanked: 2077 times in 1550 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
I know what you mean, Ant. I work from home and sometimes I spend too much time on the internet. Occasionally I take internet holidays and I'm due for one coming up here very soon.

ant wrote:
My primary contention here is/was how Dawkins is saying what he's saying and what constitutes "fact" as claimed by science (and Dawkins). It's a point that is not receiving direct response. Instead, my personal belief system is under soft attack.
It's as if you atheists want a mini Scopes trial each time a believer steps in to share his thoughts.

I have indeed responded directly to your concerns. Dawkins' assumptions are all well grounded in science.

ant wrote:
And so what if I were a Creationist? What then?

It actually matters a great deal if you are a Creationist. A Creationist has a fixed belief system that the Bible is literally true. Anywhere the Bible conflicts with science, the Bible wins. The Bible is always true. As such, there is simply no point in debating the evidence that supports evolution because a Creationist's belief is forever off limits.

So obviously if someone is incredibly resistant to the idea that we evolved from fish, naturally I have to wonder why. And I did ask you directly if you personally accept or reject the evidence that humans evolved from lower life forms, but you didn't respond. I think it's entirely possible that you're not sure what you believe. Maybe you're just trying to keep the Bible-as-literal-truth option open. Maybe there's another reason why you reject the evidence for human evolution.

Regardless, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. But neither do I see any point in debating science with anyone whose perspective is forever at odds with science. It's an irreconcilable position. As I said, we would have to just agree to disagree and move on.

So it does matter where you're coming from in order to establish common ground. If you're a Creationist or something like a Creationist, we probably don't have much common ground, but it's nice to be able to figure out where we stand. That's only possible if both sides are up front about their positions.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:36 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
Banned Books
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank