Of course, I am not denying anyone an opinion, but a book on science should really be careful about espousing opinions, the author’s or otherwise. But that said, I think you’re probably right, because our spirituality is not of a naturalistic origin. Is it? But of course, now I’m left wondering how such magnificent spiritual stuff came into being in the first place.

This is a favorite loser out of mine, by the way. It’s very hard to tell when you’ve truly won an internet debate, but for me, when someone starts complaining that you’re too tough an opponent for them, even after they’ve tried insults and sarcasm, that’s a total whuppin’.

If you read my posts you’ll see I’ve moved from religion to non-faith, and from a Dawkins-like hostility to a realization that the best way to spread non-faith is simply to teach science and accept that we are wired to believe some crazy things. Obviously I’m capable of changing my mind.

The problem here is that you are accusing an author of dishonesty because you don’t agree with him…demanding that he say what you wish he’d said, and obscurely proud of assuming the worst of him.

The funny thing is that unless you teach in a private school or a very progressive urban school, you probably can’t attack religion directly in your classes. Yet you are probably doing more to spread rational thought there than anyone on all these forums and threads. I hope and assume you are warmer and friendlier in person than on this board.

I’m now going to go away, not because I feel that your “superior reasoning” has convinced me that you “are clearly right” (arrogant much?), but because I have a life and have wasted too much time here.

The problem of course is that I’m not interested in “winning”. Apparently, to you, this is a subject of passing interest, a rhetorical exercise in which you bow out when faced with superior reasoning. I find that odd, because to me, discussion is an opportunity for learning and growth. It seems rather unskeptical of you to say to me that, while I’m clearly right, you will continue to believe what you did before our conversation. You seem obscurely proud of being someone who is incapable of changing his mind even when he knows he cannot support his beliefs with either reason or logic.

Fair enough. In that case, what you think is incorrect. Not because I say so, but in the same sense that I would be incorrect if I thought that the average radius of Saturn’s orbit was smaller than the average radius of Earth’s.

There are those that will continue to call me intolerant for saying this, but they would of course not call me intolerant if I insisted that those who claimed that Saturn had the smaller radius were wrong. So I will attempt to show that these two positions are equivalent.

The core claims of many religions include the inerrancy of their holy books. Specifically, Christianity and Mormon Christianity both insist that their books contain true and specific accounts of historical events. However, Historical research and archeology have shown us that these accounts are in fact neither specific nor accurate. Odds are excellent that there were no iron age civilizations in Northern America in the Common era, and it seems that the Exodus never actually happened. Therefore, Archeology (a science) is in conflict with the core claim of a religion (the bible/book of mormon is inerrant).

Thus, science has at least one thing to say about at least two religions and therefore your position–regardless of the strength of your conviction–is in error.

You are the logical swinging-dick and can crow about how you were semantically the most accurate. Enjoy!