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 Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:15 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 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  Next
The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality 
Author Message
User avatar
Years 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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
Quote:
It's nonsense? What do you think Stahrwe's motive is for reading the book on dark matter? Where science is weakest, there is room to shoehorn supernatural beliefs. So educate yourself on where science is the weakest.


Yes, it's actually stinky nonsense.
Belief in a universal intelligence is a personal not scientific matter. I've made that clear.
Take your beef up with Stahrwe.


Quote:
It boils down to the same thing. Accusations of "god in the gaps" is often rationalized away because those guilty of it don't connect their own epistemic motives to what the phrase actually means. Gaps in our knowledge, either by a lack of information, or 'unravelling of intelligibility', or a mischievous anomaly. When these things are used as a 'reason to believe', you're guilty of seeking god in the gaps.


You've completely ignored what I've said and are creating a strawman here to take my place.
Beat on it till your blue in the face. It doesn't "boil down" to the same thing for MY personal worldview or experience.
You're being aggressive here for no reason.

You want to argue about God here when my comments had ZERO to do with justification of belief in God.

What this reduces to is your anger at something that you don't believe exists. And you are accusing someone who made it clear (me) that mystery does NOT prove to them the existence of a divinity.

You're going nuts about an absent god, aren't you?
It sure seems that way.

What you need is a militant agnostic in your life.



Last edited by ant on Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:59 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 membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7041
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1072
Thanked: 2065 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
Quote:
You want to argue about God here when my comments had ZERO to do with justification of belief in God.


Even though you said this...

Quote:
I personally believe the unraveling of the intelligibility of the cosmos IS reason to believe.


That's not a straw man. I'm going off what you said. And what you said does in fact boil down to a god of the gaps argument(if you had the heart to formalize what you believe.) Leaving your belief informal and ambiguous is great as a defensive measure. I guess my advice would only come in to play if you want to believe your belief is true. We all believe a great deal of junk, the problem is we can't see it as such until we explore our beliefs further. But you really should avoid that, you may turn in to a militant agnostic.


Quote:
What this reduces to is your anger at something that you don't believe exists.


Yes, I'm angry about it. How dare you believe stuff!

If there is such a thing as a militant agnostic, I'd be more than happy to assume that title. But I'd rather you picture me smiling as I type, rather than pounding my keyboard in a red faced rage. :P


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:49 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years 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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
My initial comments had nothing to do with justification of belief.
And I made it clear that that was MY personal belief, not a universal justifier. And it was very much peripherally said.

And you accuse what I said as being the same thing as a god of the gaps to start an argument about a god of gaps?
Are you freaking nuts or something?!

This is BS, bro.

I don't give a f what you're angry about.



Last edited by ant on Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:56 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 membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7041
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1072
Thanked: 2065 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
Quote:
My initial comments had nothing to do with justification of belief.


Actually, you intended for your initial comments to have nothing to do with the justification of belief. But right there in the sentence you typed, you claimed "the unravelling of intelligibility" is "reason to believe." That is justification, but apparently unintentional justification. Or unrecognized justification. That's what analyzing your beliefs does, and why it's important. You illuminate the various reasons you have for believing things, even if you previously didn't see the structure underlying said belief.

Do you think people engage in 'god of the gaps' style justification on purpose? I don't. I believe it's unintentional, which you're doing a good job exemplifying.

Quote:
Are you freaking nuts or something?!

This is BS, bro.

I don't give a f what you're angry about.


My comment about being angry was sarcasm. It's fun writing what I think is a thoughtful reply, only to have you 'splode.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:05 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years 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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
Quote:
only to have you 'splode



lmao



Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:29 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 membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
My reading of this book had no motive other than I saw the book and was interested. I've heard a lot about dark matter and energy much of it wrong. I am also taking “From the Big Bang to Dark Energy”! an online class offered by The University of Tokyo.

The 'gaps' argument is worn threadbare from over use and is applicable to the atheists as well when they invoke the idiom, "we don't have the answers yet but ..." In point of fact the atheists are using the appriach they accuse Christians of using.

No reference was given with respect to Wittgenstein's retraction; please provide a citation. But I point out that Wittgenstein's principle was only one side of the coin that convicts youkrst. The other side of that coin is Alfred Tarski. I normally ignore youkrst and only responded to him this time due to the connection to ' The Logical Sins of Richard Dawkins.'

The 4% Universe book, to my surprise chronicled the seamy side of Science including follow the money, and too big (costly) to fail. Another concern I have expressed before is the cult of celebrity some 'scientists' cultivate. Carl Sagan was an example. So is Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, etc. I was amused to read this week that Bill Nye will compete on Dancing With The Stars.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:35 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years 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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
Quote:
The 'gaps' argument is worn threadbare from over use and is applicable to the atheists as well when they invoke the idiom, "we don't have the answers yet but ..." In point of fact the atheists are using the appriach they accuse Christians of using.


Good point.


Quote:
I was amused to read this week that Bill Nye will compete on Dancing With The Stars.


Maybe Richard Dawkins will perform one day.


You would like this book as well.

http://www.amazon.com/Oracles-Science-C ... 0195310721



Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:10 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 membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7041
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1072
Thanked: 2065 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
Stahrwe wrote:
My reading of this book had no motive other than I saw the book and was interested. I've heard a lot about dark matter and energy much of it wrong. I am also taking “From the Big Bang to Dark Energy”! an online class offered by The University of Tokyo.


Forgive me for guessing the motive behind your 'interest'. A young earth creationist interested in dark matter. I'm sure it's purely erudite.

Quote:
The 'gaps' argument is worn threadbare from over use and is applicable to the atheists as well when they invoke the idiom, "we don't have the answers yet but ..." In point of fact the atheists are using the appriach they accuse Christians of using.


If the 'gaps' argument has been worn threadbare, it's because it's so often applicable. In most versions I've seen the argument for a god in the gaps applied, it's by showing anomalies in scientific understanding. What's lopsided about your assessment is that each time scientists have come to an impasse, they've eventually crossed it. Meanwhile, each time a theist claims divine causation for some phenomenon that's entirely naturalistic, they've more likely than not turned out to be wrong, in light of expanding scientific knowledge.

In the case of YEC's, the argument is more about science denial than reference to gaps. You have to deny bits and pieces from every field of science(in some cases, entire fields of science) to keep your YEC beliefs. Even though the connection to your motive is right there for everyone to see, you deny it on pretense.

Quote:
No reference was given with respect to Wittgenstein's retraction; please provide a citation.


Quote:
it is the job of mathematicians to find out which mathematical sentences are true;
it is the task of physicists to discover which physical sentences are true;
It is the task of historians to determine which sentences about human history are true, and so on."


Is your argument that youkrst doesn't have a degree in theology, thus any argument he has in the field is invalid? Based on what Tarski and Wittgenstein wrote? I need no citation to form a counter argument. Outsourcing of thought isn't my style, as much as you seem to rely on it yourself. As I wrote in the other post on this subject, show me the argument you're making. If it's valid, you have no reason to fear the exercise.

Quote:
Another concern I have expressed before is the cult of celebrity some 'scientists' cultivate. Carl Sagan was an example. So is Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, etc. I was amused to read this week that Bill Nye will compete on Dancing With The Stars.


All this 'research' is driven by the same motive. You're motivated to believe something that science tells us isn't true. So you'll attack the character of scientists hoping that it in-turn casts doubt on their work. If you had the gallstones to address their work directly, rather than attempt indirect ad-hominems, you'd find the truth staring back at you. Actually, I take that back. You'd find a reason to not believe the evidence.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Mon Sep 09, 2013 8:32 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
stahrwe wrote:
I normally ignore youkrst and only responded to him this time due to the connection to ' The Logical Sins of Richard Dawkins.'


stahrwe, please be consistent. either ignore me all the time or none of the time. otherwise of course i suspect you will ignore me when you're unable to refute and reply when you think you've got a chance at making a salient point.

i find you a dodgy poster at times because i remember one thread where you got blown out of the water and you didn't even have the courtesy to acknowledge it :D

i hope you'll keep reading my posts, i read all yours :D

as one clear headed fellow wrote

Quote:
show me the argument you're making. If it's valid, you have no reason to fear the exercise.



The following user would like to thank youkrst for this post:
Interbane
Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:19 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
ant wrote:
And you accuse what I said as being the same thing as a god of the gaps to start an argument about a god of gaps?
Are you freaking nuts or something?!

This is BS, bro.

I don't give a f what you're angry about.


ant, surely you recognise that you rarely if ever just come out and make a point.

usually when you are posting about something i get to the end of heaps of posts and still can't quite pin down what your point is.

it would make things easier for everyone if you were a little more forthright, because when you don't actually say what you are trying to get at we can hardly be blamed even if we do actually fail to apprehend your point in posting.



Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:24 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 membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
Interbane wrote:
You love to make up acronyms and rules that seem to support your position, Stahrwe. Being a former literalist himself, I'd say youkrst is qualified to speak about literalism. I pointed out in another thread that Wittgenstein's philosophy has problems of it's own. How do you justify using some of the man's philosophy as a rule that should apply to everyone? I also wonder if you read where Wittgenstein retracts his own propositions as nonsense?


The term literalist has no meaning in 'this' universe. To be fair one would need to go Verse by verse through the Bible. We tried that and the particopants were unwillng or unable to do so. In my opinion you will get more original and unique information from an echo than from youkrst.

As for 'reading where Wittgenstein retracts his own position,' you are relying on what others are telling you, and they are wrong. Instead of reading what people say about what Wittgenstein said, you should read Wittgenstein. Have you done that?

In Tractatus, Wittgenstein's precept 6.54 editorialized on his work to that point. His reference to 'nonsense' was a characterization of the logical process, not his precepts or conclusions. The application of logic requires a level of extreme simplification of language. Tarski used a process of creating a 'simple, experimental language. Wittgenstein went to extremes to get his Tractatus published, and intact including 6.54. If Wittgenstein considered his work nonsenre, why did he fight to get it published?

"6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed upon it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly. "

Suppose for a moment that you are correct, Wittgenstein considered his precepts 1-6 et al nonsense; BUT, the precept I am applyiog is #7, and it is beyond the point where Wittgenstein invoke the term nonsense.

"7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:16 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 membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7041
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1072
Thanked: 2065 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
starhwe wrote:
In Tractatus, Wittgenstein's precept 6.54 editorialized on his work to that point. His reference to 'nonsense' was a characterization of the logical process, not his precepts or conclusions. The application of logic requires a level of extreme simplification of language. Tarski used a process of creating a 'simple, experimental language. Wittgenstein went to extremes to get his Tractatus published, and intact including 6.54. If Wittgenstein considered his work nonsenre, why did he fight to get it published?


In Philosophical Investigations, published in 1953, his view of philosophy is that it is therapeutic. His stance in the Tractatus and PI is anti-dogmatic, yet he admits parts of the Tractatus are dogmatic in nature.

Your use of the 7th precept seems dogmatic, which is precisely what Wittgenstein did not want. I've read parts of the PI, but I haven't read the Tractatus. For that, I've had to reference what other people have said.

Quote:
"6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed upon it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly. "


The concepts conveyed by his words are more important than the words themselves. Once you've read through the words and understand the concepts he was attempting to elucidate, the words can be discarded. Yet you're doing precisely the opposite. You're focusing on his words as if they are doctrine by which to form rules "The Logical Sins of Richard Dawkins."

Quote:
The term literalist has no meaning in 'this' universe.


The conceptual definition of what a "literalist" is apparently differs from what you think a literalist is. Just because your definition is different does not mean the word is meaningless. I'm sure you could come to an agreement with youkrst on what a 'literalist' is.

For example, do you think the parts of Genesis that deal with creation of the universe are a metaphor for an evolutionary process? Or do you believe there is a God that actually performed the deeds mentioned, as they are mentioned? I'm sure the specifics of your belief are slightly different from either of these, but if you spell them out, we can come to an agreement on what a literalist actually is. I believe you are a literalist, since you believe the words in the bible are intended to be read literally, rather than metaphorically. If that's not what you believe, then my apologies.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Wed Sep 11, 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 membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
Creationists have no more of a problem explaining the age of the universe than scientists do. In what respect can a scientist claim that the universe is LITERALLY 8 billion, or 11, or whatever the current number is, years old?

Show me a quote where Wittgenstein RETRACTS his Tractatus.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:13 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 membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7041
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1072
Thanked: 2065 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
Stahrwe wrote:
Show me a quote where Wittgenstein RETRACTS his Tractatus.


The only quote I have is from a source I don't trust, so I retract my own statement. My post above(the more recent one) is a bit more thoroughly researched. What Wittgenstein said about his earlier works is that they tended towards dogmatism. The sources are all listed on the SEP, and I can dig to the quote if you wish.

Which means his warning against taking his words as doctrine, which I expressed in my previous post, still stands. Your logical sins goes against what he believed.

Quote:
Creationists have no more of a problem explaining the age of the universe than scientists do. In what respect can a scientist claim that the universe is LITERALLY 8 billion, or 11, or whatever the current number is, years old?


The source data to determine the age of the universe is not linguistic. Therefore the conclusion wouldn't be a literal interpretation of anything. It is an explanation of what the available evidence points to.

There is no comparison here to taking your explanation from a book written by men, as if the men were telling the truth. The data doesn't corroborate their story. Show me the source data that biblical authors pulled from. Creationists do have a problem, they just refuse to accept it.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:44 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years 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

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
There I s nothing wrong with dogmatism. The scientific method is an example of dogma.

As for the age of the universe all of the discussions of its origin invoke LANGUAGE which cannot be empirically justified.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:08 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 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  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

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

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your 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