First, there are several content summaries there. Second, for someone who allegedly makes a very good living, if you care enough to prove me wrong, it shouldn't be much trouble for you to obtain the book. Of course, I'm sure that "You're lying about what that book says because I say so and I don't have to prove it." will be your position.

Since the entire contents of copyrighted books generally aren't available for free online, amazon summaries and reviews are generally the best one can do when referencing a book during a debate. I have nothing to do with that being the status quo that we all live with, so take it up with someone else. Or, are you opposed to the citation of books during a debate in principle (which, with your anti-intellectual nature, would not be surprising at all)?

Two things:

1) You're the one making the claim. The onus is upon you to prove it, not upon anyone else to disprove it.

2) I doubt anybody cares enough to prove you wrong. Most of us consider this thread comic relief.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

Oh, I could certainly buy the book. I'm just not nearly interested in the subject matter to do so.

And I don't have to prove that what you say is wrong. I question it, and you prove it. That's how it works.

My position is that you've made a claim, and you've failed to back it up. A link to a book on Amazon doesn't cut it. A link to reviews of the book doesn't cut it. A link to the contents of the book doesn't cut it.

Shit, I could write a book claiming that alien space monkeys are ruining our supply of iceberg lettuce with extra-terrestrial seahorse shit, and your position is that it would be true as long as I can get the book listed on Amazon...

__________________
Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

I'm not opposed to them at all, as long as they're not some "for sale" ad. It's not my problem that you're trying to make a point that you're unable to back up.

The funniest part is how you think I should buy the book so I can read it to see if you're right. How's about this: If you're so damned interested in being "right", and being taken seriously, YOU buy the book for me and send it to me.

If you do that, I'll read it cover to cover, and I'll then come back here and report my impressions...

__________________
Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

Didn't Crichton do one with that premise?

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

Why do I get the feeling that it isn't so much that you're an atheist and that it's more how you present yourself. If the bigoted way you behave on this forum towards those of religion has any clue to how you are in real life, then that is the problem, you're an ass.

Now let me pose this question.

Would you vote for a candidate that was a theist vs an atheist if all other factors were equal?

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

IMHO a politician professing belief is important to a lot of people because they believe that a religious person has higher morals than a non-religious person. Some people think that a non-religious person doesn't have any morals at all which in my opinion is just plain wrong. Being religious and being moral are not tied together.

In most countries the majority of people are not very educated when it comes to politics. People told me they voted for a politician simply because he/she seemed to be a very likeable person. They didn't care what those people stood for at all.

__________________
"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things."

I TOLD you....

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Mate, you can't dimply demand that somebody goes out and buys a book just to prove a point. Its your duty to provide the evidence through citation and quotation. Let me put it simply. If I'm writing a post on, say, Athenian democracy and I want to substaniate my view that there was an Athenian ideology of democracy I can't simply say 'go read Obers 'Political Dessent in Democratic Athens' thats unreasonable and unfair.

Instead what I can do i cite a good quotation and give a reference to it. If they doubt y evidence (as cited) they can go check, otherwise its all legit. Give us the quotes and then we'll talk.

__________________

Why shouldn't they think that? Or are you indulging in a case of pot and kettle?

__________________

Right, and Theists are saying that their god(s) effected/caused that observable. They are not saying molecule B didn't interact with molecule A to cause outcome X. What they are saying is that their god(s) caused that to happen via methods beyond science. As such, there is no way to prove or disprove such a claim.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

It has been rectified and is no longer an issue. Please try and keep up.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

This is not how to conduct a social experiment in a forum environment.

The scientific method is the approach: You have your hypothesis. You wish to test your hypothesis. Collect data in an unbiased fashion. See if the data matches your hypothesis. If not, then either the data sample is biased somehow or not representative or your hypothesis needs altering.

Your post is not suitable for unbiased data collection.

The fact that you can disprove some claim by some belief system does not mean you can prove or disprove the existance of a divine and supernatural being. It is true of any formal system of logic or reason that no question can be decided which treats an entity residing outside that formal system. Any supernatural divine being explicilty exists beyond those systems. As to why a particular gorup of people should get to do what you're complaining about, what's the big deal? The harm only comes from allowing those people to impose those beliefs through governmental means.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master, who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the last extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon