Comments on: Book Update

By: DamienSansBlog

DamienSansBlog — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:25:43 +0000

I'm glad to see that your book is progressing! I agree with Aweb's post; professional editing is always a must, even with copious feedback from your friends. Other than that, I wish you the best of luck!

By: Mathew Wilder

Mathew Wilder — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:59:00 +0000

I would enjoy very much reading the whole book and offering you some feedback.

By: Domyan

Domyan — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:08:09 +0000

Judging by your blog and your essays (I probably read more-or-less all of it) I honestly think that this book has a good chance of being even better read then those of the more well known atheists (the 4 horseman).
Ebon Musings was the first really good pro-atheist site I came across and it's still my favorite and for that I really thank you! I have long been of opinion that it's really unbelievable how much really good material you have written and made publicly available (both better written and larger in volume than most of the published books covering a similar subject). This book is long overdue. You really stand out and I believe that in on of the future Dawkins books you will certainly receive more credit than just one quote :)
I would certainly be honored if you would consider sending me a copy of the draft (this may be my first comment but I am a long time reader).
Anyway, thank you again and best of luck with the publishing of what is sure to be a wonderful book!
PS: I apologize for my clumsy English, not being a native speaker

By: lpetrich

lpetrich — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:38:33 +0000

One might also mention how many Xian apologists dance the two-step between:

* A crude anthropomorphic God who fixes football games and the like, who issues lots of laws, and who had demanded that people obey and finance his lieutenants.

* An abstract God, like Thomas Aquinas's "pure activity" or Paul Tillich's "ground of being", who is VERY difficult to describe.

They push an anthropomorphic God to their followers, but when challenged, they often claim to believe in an abstract God, while never criticizing the anthropomorphic sort of God directly or being up front about how the anthropomorphism is really metaphorical.

Thus, the Catholic Church never took Michelangelo's famous Sistine-Chapel depiction of God and added a disclaimer saying that his anthropomorphic portrayal was metaphorical, let alone declare it heretical.

Anthropomorphic gods are as old as history, and likely older, but abstract gods were first invented by various philosophers and theologians in various places. Aristotle's God thinks only about itself and is completely static; it keeps the rest of the Universe going in a passive way, by being the goal which the Universe's inhabitants seek. Spinoza's God is all of reality, but he got excommunicated and denounced for that on the ground that that was no God at all.

By: Ebonmuse

Ebonmuse — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:06:01 +0000

I'm not crazy about the idea of distributing my book through any digital platform that uses DRM (I don't know if the Kindle does or not), but other than that, I'm open to distributing it through all reasonable channels.

By: Nightshadequeen

Nightshadequeen — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:15:41 +0000

Any chance that your book will also be available on AmazonKindle?

By: Samuel Skinner

Samuel Skinner — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:59:42 +0000

You guys, this isn't going to be an antitheism book. Although that is what this blog is devoted to, given what Ebonmuse has implied it is going to be on ethics, morality, purpose and life.

The best part is, unlike talking about atheism and theism, he has a higher chance of being wrong... and you know what that means? Sequels!

By: John Nernoff

John Nernoff — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:25:27 +0000

Theists (lately D'Souza) constantly hammer away at the evils of atheistic Communism (Stalin mainly, who perhaps killed 60 million), Naziism (Hitler), Pol Pot and other avowedly atheistic societies as killing more people than all the religions put together. They minimize the Inquisition as having killed "only" about 2000, in comparison. Thus atheism cannot have a positive side and is profoundly immoral. PLEASE, I hope you have some iron clad, knockdowm rebuttals to this claim; I hope so given your abilities..

Another topic which is seldom treated at length by the atheist literature is the concept of non-cognitivsm. What is "God" supposed to be in the first place? Is it anything more than a sky-man? I doubt it, but some theists retort that it is a "spiritual, timeless, profound and even mysterious" entity. They would never admit believing in the primitive idea of a humanoid in the sky, but I'll bet that every concept of "God" starts out with that belief. Just look at all the anthropomorphic references in the Bible for starters. How can atheists reject a concept that they cannot define in the first place?

Thanks. I'll very likely buy your book when it comes out.

By: Alex Weaver

Alex Weaver — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:46:52 +0000

I'd like to read it as well.

By: David D.G.

David D.G. — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:41:01 +0000

What Susan B. said. Just on the basis of what I've seen of your writing here, I will happily look forward to buying this book whenever it comes out.

~David D.G.