5 of 88 people found the following review helpful
Agree with review "Stranger & Stranger",
This review is from: God and the Folly of Faith (Paperback)
I have to agree with the reviewer of "Stranger & Stranger". I am a serious scientist and also medically trained. I have seen the pettiness and jealously that scientists have towards doctors of the medical profession with actually very little grasp of what the later actually do, have to go through and sacrifice. It feels like the same in this book but with atheists vs Christians. Like nearly all atheistic writings they target Christianity... mmmmmm.... That should always make a true scientist sit up and think - not another bible basher fantasy novel? May be if they looked at Islam and Judaism with their oh so clever critical cliches then people on the fence would bother to actually start to rationally think or consider what they are saying with some weight. However, because the latter faiths have certain rules regarding such writings towards them, I am sure atheistic writings will continue to produce the same old rubbish and never have a sensible argument to represent because of their pettiness, while congratulating themselves and patting themselves on the back. A classic? Well who can say, look at the hypothetical and again biased writings of Dawkins. Where are peoples brains? Want to get people off the fence? Write fact not fiction based around facts - after a little bit of knowledge is more dangerous than knowing the whole truth. Congratulations on this latter - the very little knowledge that is that is interesting - hence one star!
Tracked by 4 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 11 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 28 Jul 2012 16:10:39 BDT
Amazon Customer says:
So what if you are a "serious" scientist who is medically trained? How does that make your opinion of a book YOU HAVE NOT READ any more or less valid? All you have done is make numerous evidence-free assertions, the stand-out one being that atheists are only ever "anti-Christianity" which is arrant nonsense.
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Aug 2012 14:31:14 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Aug 2012 14:35:16 BDT
Peter Alan Clarke says:
Not really understanding what 'a "serious" scientist who is medically trained' means or signifies an identity to criticise this book. Are you a practicing Doctor? If so, I have never met anyone who disparages your profession nor the high level of intellect required to become a doctor. Are you so unaware of the history of the church towards free thinkers of Victor J Stenger's criticism of christian faith? We certainly would not be in discussion together because free rational thinkers of old were accused of heresy and used to light up the surroundings. A certain Friar Bruno received this disgusting and immoral torture! Why? Because he wondered out loud if there were other worlds that existed in the heavens above. Really, truly, was this seen as a severe criticism of faith? To the faithful, yes it was and had to be if society were to believe they were the children of god. Augustin wrote that the greatest threat to a person's christian faith was to discuss faith with a rational man as he will not fail to make the believer look stupid and ridiculous in their belief. So his suggestion that ignorance was needed for the faithful only supports V. Stenger's view that the christian faith had to stop any rational thinking undermining religion. Is that then your stance towards the authour's viewpoint? One day it will be realised that religion has become our cultural heritage but history will always have recorded ,by their previous domination, be witness to their need to revere and demand ignorance and subsequently had undermined and delayed the emergence of our present free world. Enjoy your faith as part of your heritage if you need but as to believing it to be the truth....no, never again will we let that happen.
Posted on 7 Sep 2012 14:42:51 BDT
Last edited by the author on 7 Sep 2012 14:43:51 BDT
H. A. Weedon says:
'biased writings of Dawkins' you say. What utter and complete rubbish! If only religionists were as fair minded and unbiased as Richard Dawkins, how much better it would be for all concerned. Fair minded persons will see for themselves how utterly biased and unrealistic a vast number of religionists truly are. Happily, not all religionists are like that, and I'm happy to say that I have first hand experience of atheists and religionists who respect each other's views and get on well together. Then again, the matter is complicated by the very real fact that 'atheist' means 'no god'. It doest NOT mean 'no religion'. It's perfectly possible to be and atheist and have a religion at the same time. For instance, there are no gods in basic Buddhism. If you want your reviews to be taken seriously, don't lash out with unwarranted accusations. No truly serious scientist would ever do such a thing.
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Sep 2012 17:47:05 BDT
You may well have seen the disdain that some scientists have for doctors. However unless you are asserting that scientists are atheists and doctors are Christians, I don't understand your point.
You might just as well point out that some male doctors show contempt for female doctors or some haematologists look down on radiologists.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in any gods. I do not target Christianity.
I do however read books by renowned atheists as well as a few books by some of the best known Christian fundamentalists.
I choose these Christian books because it is the Christian faith I was indoctrinated in when I was a child. If perhaps, instead of singing praise to Jesus every morning, I was called to Muslim prayer before my lessons started, then perhaps I would be reading different books now... but probably not.
The main reason I read these Christian books is because it is Christians who knock on my door and tell me that I am a sinner and will spend eternity in Hell.
If people from other religions decide to come to my house and tell me personally that their god loves me but also that he would like to see me burn then I shall buy different books. Thus armed, I shall point out the massive logic holes in their arguments, just as I do with the Christians.
Most `atheist' books on the subject of god are not solely anti-Christian. The thesis behind the book you have reviewed though is that over the ages Christianity has held back science. - Obviously it is going to be anti-Christian. Don't have a go at all atheist writings as being specifically anti-Christian on the basis of this one book because it simply isn't true. Atheists by definition don't believe in any gods.
Finally your review of the book praises Kriss Mascard's `review' of the book. Mascard doesn't even get around to reviewing the book. Instead he insults the man who wrote the Foreword for the current edition and also insults a different man who wrote the Foreword of a previous edition. Ad Hominem against people who didn't even write the book can hardly be said to be a review of said book.
Stranger and stranger indeed.
Posted on 12 Oct 2012 12:43:47 BDT
Anindya Bhattacharya says:
Can the reviewer state , point by point with argument where the author's statements are incorrect? Also Dr. Stenger can be contacted at his email addess.So, if the reviewer understands science that well and is not a biased person, can he/she state clearly what I have requested?
Posted on 24 Oct 2012 23:44:42 BDT
Amazon Customer says:
What a silly reviewer.
Posted on 27 Oct 2012 16:13:42 BDT
Ian Smith says:
I doubt if a serious and coherent comment would be worth the writing. For sure, it would neither be understood nor received by the author of this incoherence.
Posted on 2 Dec 2012 12:10:28 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Dec 2012 12:11:15 GMT
Dr Sheldon Cooper says:
By S Turner: Like nearly all atheistic writings they target Christianity
Noun 1. Atheist - someone who denies the existence of god.
That pretty much takes care of that. It's a falsehood that Atheist literature singles out one religion as well. In fact it's theists who don't treat all religions objectively, not Atheists.
By S Turner: another bible basher fantasy novel
If fantasy novel doesn't accurately describe the vast majority of the bible's contents let's have some empirical evidence to prove it? Incidentally that hasn't stopped some people viewing that book as a classic. I won't hold my breath though, as an Atheist I long ago grew weary of this response going unanswered.
By S Turner: Write fact not fiction based around facts
Hilariously ironic, physician heal thy self.....
By S Turner: I am a serious scientist and also medically trained. I have seen the pettiness and jealously that scientists have towards doctors of the medical profession
I see no evidence of any education, medical or otherwise in your post. Perhaps these scientists are having a similar experience from you, and I've met doctors in my time who were too dumb to get in out of the rain.
To cap it all you haven't even tried to review the content of the book, another shockingly biased theist ranting and railing at an author that dares to question their blind faith in feeble ancient myths.
Posted on 19 Dec 2012 01:34:07 GMT
Un-lettered. Never mind science. Go back and study english. Clarity is key to expression my dear chap.
In reply to an earlier post on 28 Aug 2013 10:27:35 BDT
Mike Heron says:
I agree with DJ Appleby that your claim to be a "serious" scientist (you mean you don't wear a red nose?) and medically trained has absolutely no bearing on the issue. However, allow me to challenge the "medically-trained" claim. The last person who said that to me turned out to be a Health Care Assistant. Doctors usually say they are doctors - not "I'm medically-trained"? There's another possibility of course, that you trained to be a doctor but failed or dropped out of the course and ended up working as a Medical Laboratory Assistant conducting low grade tasks for real scientists. (But of course I could be wrong.)