The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Nique]

Whee! Response time!

Originally Posted by ZTG

What do you mean by, "functions?"

Physics, I guess?

It seems like kind of a leap of faith to go from "some people predicted some events" to God, Christ, divine interference and the afterlife. But I could be misunderstanding what you wrote.... I'm assuming this isn't exactly a main point. I mean, there's probably some accurate real-world information in Harry Potter books, but that doesn't validate anything else written in them.

What I mean is that if a 'miracle' like phrophesy is true, the question of 'how' comes around. Also the historical bit... And since I have reason to trust what the bible says in those aspects, then I guess I would belive it when it cites its sources also.

I don't belive in the 'afterlife', but that's a more specific point the thread may lean towards a little later.

Originally Posted by Rai

I however will gladly watch this go to hell and have no part in it other than that.

Wow. Not even cautious optimisim? Well, better not get involved I guess... the stress might be bad for the baby.

Originally Posted by Locke

What's even more ironic is that religious people use reasoning, explanation, and logic to explain their reasons for believing. So the entire concept that somehow a deductive belief isn't deductive is ridiculous. The concept of faith is pretty much a massive intellectual cop-out and joke.

I can't speak for everyone, but even though there is a certain amount of emotional attachment to my faith, it isn't something I've approached blindly or with vague definitions of what faith is. I guess, in your argument, that would make me having a deductive belife, but still wrong.

'Faith', to me, is like trust. Very literal. Do you trust someone who has been supportive to you? Someone who, to your knowledge, has never lied? You would have faith in that person to not lie to you, or to support you when they said they would, right? Faith in God is like that for me, becuase I find enough basis the Bible to believe that he exsists and that he cares about people.

The universe exists, has existed, and always will exist.

1. We're talking theory, in a way here. Aren't scientists still sort of figuring out the nature of the universe? I know that's simplified, and I don't mean to discredit current scientific belife... But we don't know how it works yet. Not really.

2. Regardless of how it (the universe) actually is, what belife in creation should really root itself in is the organization... how the universe is now. I mean, there are rational ways to work a creator into infinite exsistence. More important though, I don't think any rational person would claim to be able to explain from the scriptures all the technical aspects of how our universe got to be where it is now.

Originally Posted by Darth SS

In the end, I want to do good in the world specifically because the world needs some good done. I don't care if some great being is happy with it, I don't care about appeasing his arbitrary standards.

Aren't these comflicting belifes though? I mean, if you belive in a creator, it stands to reason that his standards are actually natural or inherient to some goal?

Originally Posted by Spacepope

We as people can look beyond the bounds of our limited faith and bring each other together.

I see no reason that this can't be a civil, even friendly disscussion. Everyone really has to be careful to leave biogtry at the door, though.

Originally Posted by Red Fighter

it's all fine and dandy that you are very religious, but just shut up about it, I don't believe in what you believe in, so stop converting me!

I also hate how easily offended people get when it comes to religion, like when stores put up Christmas decorations during the winter holidays. People have the right to do what they want.

So I can't talk about my potentially minority faith but I still have to endure the very religiously themed christmas music at the mall? Carolers at my doorstep? That sounds like a raw deal to me.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Physics, I guess?

Well, if you're talking about laws of physics, then what you wrote doesn't make sense. These laws didn't "develop;" a fundamental assumption of science is that they have remained static for all existence. But to cut the semantics, believing that a being actively "set the rules" doesn't take you very far. I mean, if all this thing is defined as is the one that made everything and set the rules, then it doesn't satisfy the claims many religions make about their gods. It's still very possible that the being doesn't interfere with the actions in the universe, or that it even can; or that it cares or knows at all about us or even this planet. Hell, it might not even be observing the universe.

What I mean is that if a 'miracle' like phrophesy is true, the question of 'how' comes around.

Oh, certainly. But what I'm saying is that there's really no connection between that and any other Christian claims. Maybe the prophet was a psychic. Maybe a wizard did it. Maybe someone actively worked to make sure the prophecy was fulfilled. All crazy theories; nothing to base any major aspect of your life around...

[Lockeownzj00]

So... you see... even your orange rock eventually will cease to exist. All we'll be left with (In theory mind you, as all of this science stuff is theoretical) is this massive expanse of photons. Thats pretty darn close to nothing.

So... in theory, the universe has an end.

That's still missing the point. Even those photons will break down and break down, etc. etc.; it's all the same. It can't become "nothing" in the strictest sense of the word, especially if, as you say, more things can follow this heat death.

To Mirai: Sam Harris uses the following argument. If we ever hope to advance in the most important ways in our society--in terms of dire things like stem cell research and physical religious conflict--we have to recognise that some sets of beliefs more accurately reflect reality than others. You're right that it's difficult to get people to agree, but ultimately, when it comes down to it, I think they can. These petty squabbles quickly become very important when we realize the implications. That is, religious debates aren't these timeless things that happen all the time and will never go anywhere: once we hit the wall with (again) stem cell research, we'll be forced to do something about it, and in that case, people will have to start recognising more cohesive logic.

I believe in my religion because of faith alone.

Mr. Harris, I give you the floor (full of typos from my feverish typing):

"But faith is an impostor. This can be readily seen in the way that all the extraordinary phenomena of the religious life--a statue of the Virgin weeps, a child casts his crutches to the ground--are siezed upon by the faithful as confirmation of their fath. At these moments, religious believers appear like men and women in the desert of uncertainty given a cool drink of data. There is no way around the fact that we crave justification for our core beliefs and believe them only becuase we think such justification is, at the very least, in the offing. Is there a practicing Christian in the West who would be indifferent to the appearance of incontestable physical evidence that attested to the literal truth of the Gospels? Imagine if carbon dating of the shroud of Turin had shown it to be as old as Easter Sunday, AD 29: Is there any doubt that this revelation would have occasioned a spectacle of awe, exultation, and zealous remission of sins throughout the Christian world?

This is the very same faith that will not stoop to reason when it has no good reason to believe. If a little supportive evidence emerges, however, the faithful prove as attentive to data as the damned. This demonstrates that faith is nothing more than a willingness to await the evidence--be it the Day of Judgement or some other downpour of corroboration. It is the search for knowledge on the installment plan: believe now, live an untestable hypothesis until your dying day, and you will discover that you were right.

But in any other sphere of life, a belief is a check that everyeone insists upon cashing this side of the grave: the engineer says the bridge will hold; the doctos says infection is resistant to penicillin--these people have defeasible reasons for their claims about the way the world is. The mullah, the priest, and the rabbi do not. Nothing could change about this world, or about the world of their experience, that would demonstrate the falsity of many of their core beliefs. This proves that these beliefs are not born of any examination of the world, or of the world of their experience. (They are, in Karl Popper's sense, "unfalsifiable.") It appears that even the Holocaust did not lead most Jews to doubt the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God. If having half of your people systematically delivered to the furnace does not count as evidence against the notion that an all-powerful God is looking out for your interests, it seems reasonable to assume that nothing could. How does the mullah know that the Koran is the verbatim word of God? The only answer to be given in any language that does not make a mockery of the word "know" is--he doesn't.

A man's faith is just a subset of his beliefs about the world: beliefs about matters of ultimate concern that we, as a culture, have told him he need not justify at the present. It is time we recognized just how maladaptive this Balkanization of our discourse has become. All peretensions to theological knowledge should now be seen from the perspective of a man who was just beginning his day on the one hundredth floor of the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11th, 2001, only to find his meandering thoughts--of family and friends, of errands run and unrun, of coffee in need of sweetener--inexplicably usurped by a choice of terrible starkness and simplicity: between being burned alive by jet fuel or leaping one thousand feet to the concrete below. In fact, we should take the perspective of thousands of such men, women, and children, who were robbed of life, far sooner than they imagined possible, in absolute terror and confusion. The men who committed the atrocities of Setpember 11 were certainly not "cwoards," as they were repeatedly described in the Western media, nor were they lunatics in any ordinary sense. They were men of faith--perfect[ faith, as it turns out--and this, it must finally be acknowledge, is a terrible thing to be."

Faith in God is like that for me, becuase I find enough basis the Bible to believe that he exsists and that he cares about people.

I will re-quote Mr. Harris:

Originally Posted by Sam Harris

This proves that these beliefs are not born of any examination of the world, or of the world of their experience. (They are, in Karl Popper's sense, "unfalsifiable.") It appears that even the Holocaust did not lead most Jews to doubt the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God. If having half of your people systematically delivered to the furnace does not count as evidence against the notion that an all-powerful God is looking out for your interests, it seems reasonable to assume that nothing could. How does the mullah know that the Koran is the verbatim word of God? The only answer to be given in any language that does not make a mockery of the word "know" is--he doesn't.

1. We're talking theory, in a way here. Aren't scientists still sort of figuring out the nature of the universe? I know that's simplified, and I don't mean to discredit current scientific belife... But we don't know how it works yet. Not really.

No, we don't. Again we come to Occam's Razor. Which belief is more rooted in logical conjecture and verifiable evidence? If the only counter-argument you can propose is that our scientific knowledge is incomplete, than I have to respond that that's a very poor one: the fact that we boot-strapped ourselves up from the Wheel to nuclear energy should say something for the argument that we should hold our judgement because it's still not "done." Besides, even Stephen Hawking maintains that the universe is elliptical. So, so far it looks something like this:

*Stephen Hawking vs. Text written thousands of years ago.*

I'm gonna go with Hawking.

2. Regardless of how it (the universe) actually is, what belife in creation should really root itself in is the organization... how the universe is now. I mean, there are rational ways to work a creator into infinite exsistence. More important though, I don't think any rational person would claim to be able to explain from the scriptures all the technical aspects of how our universe got to be where it is now.

Rational in what sense? Please don't misuse words. I can also retcon and fancruft explanations for Metal Gear Solid 2's plot holes in seemingly "rational" ways, but these are entirely my creation and cease to be based off of any real observation or evidence at a certain point. So, no, you can't work them in "rationally," you can work them in "creatively."

Originally Posted by Nique

I don't think any rational person would claim to be able to explain from the scriptures all the technical aspects of how our universe got to be where it is now.

I'd just like to point out some incongruity here:

Originally Posted by grunthork

Faith is NOT based on fact, or logic as we know it.

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

As a whole, the athiest movement on the boards is not wrong, per se, however, anyone that believes that their standard is "more correct" than any other is totally wrong.

How so? Flat Earth is a worldview. Round Earth is more correct. We have to accept that certain belief systems are more logically flawed. Moral relativism is pointless and defeatist.

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

]s illusory as religon is, there is no reason at all to discount it as fallacy or fiction just because you do not share the same belifs as other people.

I'm not discounting it "just because" I disagree. Claiming that is a) circular logic, b) a fallacy itself. I am discounting it for more than binary reasons: because I truly believe it is sociologically harmful. And I think the evidence is on my side. Is that not reason enough? This idea of "ideological neutrality" is another cop-out that's been brought about by religious apologetics. Would anyone claim that we should be ideologically neutral about racism, or alchemy? Again: the concept in and of itself of persuading people toward truth isn't inherently flawed. It is not on this point that I have a problem with religious people--in a sense, we are both trying to do the same thing: project truth, which is a noble thing. Then, it simply comes down to dissecting the logic of each proposition: one clearly stands the test of time, and the other doesn't.

Originally Posted by Azisien

I guess I'm an atheist with a fair load of liberal, but you've got your right to believe whatever you want, so long as it doesn't cause detriment to others.

I have some cognitive dissonance myself with stuff like that. Pragmatically, I don't go around trying to convince people. I have religious friends, and they in and of themselves cause little harm (though they obviously, at some point or another succumb to the pitfalls of religious illogic, usually with important decisions about their life). But simultaneously, I believe it's a problem of terrible importance, moreso with each passing day. Religion is a social indulgence--societies, groups of people, indulge in it. And on this large scale, it verifiably causes harm. In this sense I can't pretend it doesn't cause detriment. So it is, however, that I am but a 17 year old in New Jersey, and I can't do much of anything. I yield to Dawkins and Harris and the like for now.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what I think Demetrius means when he said that is that you should have faith in what you believe or you "are empty".

Ahh, I see.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Just tossing something into the wind real quick.

The probable reason the Jews kept their faith during that time was that the Bible says somewhere in it that the Jewish people will always be in conflict and under oppression until the end of the world. They saw the holocaust as a confirmation of that scripture.

[Edit]

Originally Posted by Locke

What's even more ironic is that religious people use reasoning, explanation, and logic to explain their reasons for believing. So the entire concept that somehow a deductive belief isn't deductive is ridiculous. The concept of faith is pretty much a massive intellectual cop-out and joke.

The whole thing about logic and religion is that human logic can't be used to explain an eternal all-powerful being. People who use human logic and reasoning to explain religion will never win an argument. Try explaining the concept of the Trinity using human logic. This also applies to the whole "can he make a rock he can't lift" realm of thought.

[Lockeownzj00]

Since when is logic divided into "human" and "non-human" logic? Seen any Trolls with Sudoku books lately?

So if the concept of the Trinity and religion was created by humans, it was necessarily created by said "human logic." So how is it exempt from the human methods of testing and falsification? Besides, how could you possibly claim to know that God somehow has his own special kind of logic? My guess is you used deductive reasoning: God is, or would be, a "special" entity, and therefore has to, or would have to, adhere to some kind of separate, "supernatural" line of thought. Except, you just used 'human' logic to determine that!

Where do we go from here? I don't know, because this line of reasoning is pointless.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

Since when is logic divided into "human" and "non-human" logic? Seen any Trolls with Sudoku books lately?

So if the concept of the Trinity and religion was created by humans, it was necessarily created by said "human logic." So how is it exempt from the human methods of testing and falsification?

If you can live forever in heaven without having to eat, drink, sleep, or even breathe, that constitutes a whole new set of rules in my opinion. Since it's definitely not logical to live forever without food.

The concept of the trinity and religion weren't created by humans.

[notasfatasmike]

Originally Posted by Locke

My goal in saying this is to first prime the idea that religion is not exempt from these logical processes. This is also why atheism isn't "just as much of a belief" as religion is. It is the lack of belief. Bald is not a hair color.

This is a common problem I run into in religious debates: people pretending there isn't a difference between atheism and agnosticism. Agnosticism is the "scientific position" of the two: that is, an agnostic does not believe there is a god, but would change their mind if provided with sufficient proof. This is what scientists do; assume something is not true until it is proven to be true.

An atheist, on the other hand, actively states that there is *no* god. For an atheist, the non-existance of god is a simple fact that no amount of evidence would change, much like the existance of god for a religious person. Either you're really an agnostic, or you're misusing the term atheist.

Originally Posted by Locke

What's even more ironic is that religious people use reasoning, explanation, and logic to explain their reasons for believing. So the entire concept that somehow a deductive belief isn't deductive is ridiculous. The concept of faith is pretty much a massive intellectual cop-out and joke.

But here's the thing - in my experience, most religious people (myself included) *wouldn't* use logic to explain our reasons if those we were arguing against didn't demand it. Bob already touched on this briefly: the kind of logic that we use, which is inherently based in the natural world, cannot be used to explain the supernatural. Sure, we may have logic behind parts of our reasons, but primarily most religious people would say that they have had experiences in their lives in which they have felt the presence of something greater than themselves, something outside of the natural order for which they can find no other explanation for. The term "religious experience" didn't appear from nowhere. However, to the non-believer, someone who has never had such an experience, this argument holds no water, and rightfully so. (And in case you're wondering, yes, this is me saying that debate about religion is always going to be fruitless in terms of changing other people's minds. I'm still involving myself in this debate anyway.)

This does not, however, imply that there *aren't* logical reasons - it's just that I would be very surprised to find someone who truly and firmly believed in a religion without having experienced or felt something that was to some extent unexplainable.

Originally Posted by Locke

*huge frickin' snip - hope you already read it!*

Your analogy, while clever, in no way, shape, or form *proves* that the universe is infinite. It suggests that it could be infinite, and I wouldn't argue otherwise, but such knowledge about our universe is literally outside of the realm of *possible* knowledge. I cannot imagine a way to prove that, in terms of time, the universe is finite or infinite, especially by scientific standards.

In regards to the quote from Sam Harris in your most recent post, his argument, as I understand it, is that since faith is an assumption about how the world works that is unprovable, it should be abandoned. Well, I've got news for you: if that's true, science should be completely abandoned as well, because it's based on the concept of causality, which is unprovable. Do I believe in causality? Absolutely. Is it provable? Absolutely not. Where's the difference?

(Also, I was impressed with his ability to pull some sort of Super-Godwin with that quote: he got in both the Holocaust AND 9/11! Boy, it's good to know that people are above using the "appeal to emotion" fallacy.)

To be honest and forthcoming, I'm probably only going to participate in this thread intermittenly (sp?), because as I said earlier, I really believe that such discussions are largely fruitless. I didn't mean to pick specifically on you, Locke, but you were the only person who had comments I really felt interested in commenting on at the moment.

[Azisien]

In regards to the quote from Sam Harris in your most recent post, his argument, as I understand it, is that since faith is an assumption about how the world works that is unprovable, it should be abandoned. Well, I've got news for you: if that's true, science should be completely abandoned as well, because it's based on the concept of causality, which is unprovable. Do I believe in causality? Absolutely. Is it provable? Absolutely not. Where's the difference?

It's beyond unprovable, it's unobserved. At least with science, you have verifiable observation, and degrees of certainty. And if you must argue the subjective "religious experience" stuff, then it's objectively unobserved.

I have some cognitive dissonance myself with stuff like that. Pragmatically, I don't go around trying to convince people. I have religious friends, and they in and of themselves cause little harm (though they obviously, at some point or another succumb to the pitfalls of religious illogic, usually with important decisions about their life). But simultaneously, I believe it's a problem of terrible importance, moreso with each passing day. Religion is a social indulgence--societies, groups of people, indulge in it. And on this large scale, it verifiably causes harm. In this sense I can't pretend it doesn't cause detriment. So it is, however, that I am but a 17 year old in New Jersey, and I can't do much of anything. I yield to Dawkins and Harris and the like for now.

I suppose there's a problem of small tyrannies when it comes to it, yeah. Do we necessarily have to remove the entire belief system to get rid of the internal factors of that system that do cause harm?

If you can live forever in heaven without having to eat, drink, sleep, or even breathe, that constitutes a whole new set of rules in my opinion. Since it's definitely not logical to live forever without food.

The concept of the trinity and religion weren't created by humans.

I'm curious as to when you were last in heaven and lacking the requirements of food, drink, sleep, oxygen, and so on? Actually, yeah, these things were created by humans. I imagine by the humans who wrote all the biblical texts, from themselves and influences of the society around them at the time.

Bob already touched on this briefly: the kind of logic that we use, which is inherently based in the natural world, cannot be used to explain the supernatural.

Supernatural, like rain? (Which 10000 years ago, was probably supernatural to most humans). Supernatural like lightning? Supernatural like the sunrise and sunset?

[ZAKtheGeek]

Your analogy, while clever, in no way, shape, or form *proves* that the universe is infinite. It suggests that it could be infinite, and I wouldn't argue otherwise, but such knowledge about our universe is literally outside of the realm of *possible* knowledge. I cannot imagine a way to prove that, in terms of time, the universe is finite or infinite, especially by scientific standards.

I've done that already. Post 24.

Also, both "atheist" and "agnostic" can mean a number of different things. Let's try not to get too caught up in semantics. Even though this is a religious discussion.

[Lockeownzj00]

If you can live forever in heaven without having to eat, drink, sleep, or even breathe, that constitutes a whole new set of rules in my opinion. Since it's definitely not logical to live forever without food.

The concept of the trinity and religion weren't created by humans.

Okay. Who was it created by? And how do we know about it?

Originally Posted by notasfatasmike

An atheist, on the other hand, actively states that there is *no* god. For an atheist, the non-existance of god is a simple fact that no amount of evidence would change, much like the existance of god for a religious person. Either you're really an agnostic, or you're misusing the term atheist.

This is an interesting delineation that I've never run into before. While I still disagree, I'm very interested in the idea; I've never heard this argument used.

Still, I think I'll side with Isaac Asimov on this one:

Originally Posted by Isaac Asimov

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

Functionally, I understand what you're saying, but what this boils down to is two things:

1) Socially, the difference is grand. People who tend to use the word agnostic simply tend to be much more forgiving to religion in a broad sense. This is why I would use the term atheist in my case, as Douglas Adams did--a self-professed "radical atheist" to clearly point out his position.

2) Semantics. Scientists are both of what you are saying; "if" evidence for God were to appear they'd readily study it, but it's the same as saying "if" evidence for Zeus appeared they'd study it, too. Scientists so strongly, strongly suspect that there is no God that it is pointless to say "agnostic" or "atheist" in this case, in which case I think it's a technicality.

Originally Posted by notasfatasmike

the kind of logic that we use, which is inherently based in the natural world, cannot be used to explain the supernatural.

But you do use it to explain the supernatural. Any time you open your mouth and say anything even remotely in defense of religion, you are using logic, and negating your own argument.

Besides, this is a relatively recent concept. A thousand years ago, it was absolutely canonical to say that God was logical, God was science, and there was no separation between the two. So I think it's just demographically, sociologically obvious: it's just the fickleness of society (kind of like that joke about Communism).

Originally Posted by notasfatasmike

most religious people would say that they have had experiences in their lives in which they have felt the presence of something greater than themselves, something outside of the natural order for which they can find no other explanation for.

Excuse me for being skeptical--so, the evidence for belief is people who think they feel "a presence" in themselves? First of all, this is so vague that there is barely any point in trying to counter it. I don't understand what any of that means.

You're telling me that a more likely explanation isn't the complexity of the human brain? The brain which we know, for a fact, that we can open up, and probe certain sectors to fuck with peoples' proprioception, making them think people are behind them when there's no one? Again, I'm siding with evidence.

Besides, I can only deduce that these people that "can't find any other explanation" for these phenomena are simply not thinking hard enough. People have been crediting euphoric rushes, water drip-drip-dripping, and strange noises in the house to the supernatural as long as we've been around. I can't really see why this is any different.

Originally Posted by notasfatasmike

However, to the non-believer, someone who has never had such an experience, this argument holds no water, and rightfully so.

That's kind of a sad assumption. I have had a religious experience: I've taken LSD.

And I'm not joking. There was an experiment in the 60s when LSD was relatively uncommon. Our favorite Timothy Leary dosed half of his class with real LSD, and half with fake. Nobody knew what it was. The same amount of people from both groups reported that they had so-called "religious experiences." These rushes of feeling, this intense euphoria and astounding intellectual perspective is a natural process. Just like Out of Body experiences. The fact that the OBE effect can be achieved by pharmacology should completely put to rest the debate that it's a "supernatural" experience, because we cn clearly induce it when we want to and how we want to.

In fact, I just had a similarly "religious experience" after reading Asimov's The Last Question (I'm serious. I was like a child babbling after I read that story, simply uttering "oh my god" over and over again, pacing around my room).

I defy you to present me with unexplainable examples that go beyond hearsay. The James Randi Foundation is waiting on the line, too.

Originally Posted by notasfatasmike

Your analogy, while clever, in no way, shape, or form *proves* that the universe is infinite. It suggests that it could be infinite, and I wouldn't argue otherwise, but such knowledge about our universe is literally outside of the realm of *possible* knowledge. I cannot imagine a way to prove that, in terms of time, the universe is finite or infinite, especially by scientific standards.

Scientific knowledge is frequently based on extrapolation. Indeed, many of our past advances in science were previously huge tracts of scientific gray area. If your only counter to my logical proposition that the universe is infinite is that you simply don't want it to be so, I can't accept that answer.

Like I said, I'm also pretty sure Stephen Hawking has talked extensively about time/space's elliptical nature, so I don't think I'm alone here.

Originally Posted by notasfatasmike

(Also, I was impressed with his ability to pull some sort of Super-Godwin with that quote: he got in both the Holocaust AND 9/11! Boy, it's good to know that people are above using the "appeal to emotion" fallacy.)

It is such a terrible misfortune that you should paint Sam Harris as appealing to emotions. The catalyst to his book was 9/11, and addressing why religion is no longer an innocuous problem in the world today. Naturally, he uses it as the centrepiece for the book. I suggest you buy a copy of the book before you compare him to any of the dregs of society that publish alarmist novels.

Final note: I'd also like to call on forumites to stop damning this thread. It's high time for people to realize that debates can be had about religion that don't involve petty insults. So far it seems to be going fine. So don't JYNX it, yo.