Atheist Ireland Forum

Nobody ever erected a monument to a critic. It takes years to build something but only a short time to wreck it. How many books have you written? I cannot find any of the books on Kindle mentioned by Feardorcha and I suspect he is a liar. They are silly titles anyway. The two people who gave it 5 star reviews are on different continents. So you remind me of a eunuch in a brothel, you can't do it yourself so you find fault in those who do it. A flea book is one that refutes the original book, and uses the name of the author or the title in the title. This book does neither and is the genuine discussion by the author meant to contribute to the subject. It would seem you just enjoy wrecking peoples attempts to build something. That says a lot about you. When will you write a book so people can belittle what you do?

Cracker, why are you so offended by what a group of people you don't know, on the other side of the world from you, and with whom you have never interacted, think about a book you have no personal stake in?

Eh! Well that's true but I was aiming for irony.

whinge whinge whinge

The author is an atheist who is speaking out with his voice against organised religion and he was in a Catholic orphanage as a small boy. The way you people denigrate his work, you would think he was the enemy, when in fact he is on your side. I always speak up for the underdog, but it appears you like to put the boots in, even to one of your own. The put downs and superior attitude to a fellow atheist, who has gone to the effort of producing a book is quite amazing. Do you belittle other authors? Flea books? If someone refutes Dawkins in a book called "The Dawkins Delusion" then that is a Flea book. For it is contrary to Dawkins but rides on his back using his name or title of the book. I fail to see how you can draw that bow in this case, other than seeing it as being nasty to someone who has attempted something you never have and most likely never will do yourself. Monuments are erected to builders not wreckers, so take a good long hard look at yourself, because what you have shown here in this thread is anything but honourable.

I suppose you think this guy has also made a huge contribution to science and deserves a monument -I mean look at all the books he has written and all the videos he has produced

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keyword ... ind&page=1

Kent Hovind is barking mad, and not one of your own, and someone pushing rubbish. You on the other hand are Working to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism.

So the author is one of your own. His father is from County Down. He was in a Catholic orphanage, and is voicing his protest against organised religion, and all you can do is put the boots in. He would be treated better if he went to Church. They would be nice to him there and give him a cup of tea.

All you can do is patronize and hand out put downs, yet none of you have ever published any books yourself. As one said above - his heart is in the right place. It is strange how you treat one of your own. That tells me you are just as bad as the religious - worse. They at least are nice to their own.

I gave my honest opinion of the book. Someone working for the author promoted it here, so comments on it are fair game. Just because the author and I share a viewpoint on something doesn't mean I should say his book is great. Fair enough I've never written a book, but so what? Yeah it must have taken a long time and lots of effort and dedication, and I appreciate that, but it still doesn't mean I have to like it. If you write something but don't want any criticism of it, then its probably best to keep it to yourself.

Also I didn't realise they were handing out cups of tea in churches now, it was strictly body and blood of long-dead messiahs on the menu the last time I darkened their door.

Not really. It's just not a very good book. Truth be told, it's terrible. There is more to publishing a book than simply writing 20,000 words on a given topic - or at least there used to be. We've allowed the author (and his friends) to publicise his work here, but he has no right to be immune from criticism, or to expect five-star reviews just because his heart is in the right place or because writing a book - even a bad one - is hard.

Again I have to ask: why are you so offended by what a group of people you don't know, on the other side of the world from you, and with whom you have never interacted, think about a book you have no personal stake in?

out of the mouths of babes !




what has that got to do with the quality of his work??



so what ? do food critics have to be chefs? do movie critics have to be directors? do book critics have to be best selling writers? do religious critics have to be priests ? -obviously not !


and how do you know that any way ? besides any one can get a vanity book printed !



http://www.vividpublishing.com.au/gettingpublished/ - the authors publisher
was it peer reviewed ? clearly the editing was also absent from the bit I had to endure on amazon .


thousands of survivors of physical and sexual abuse by the catholic church would disagree

No you don't have to like it. But it is wrong in my view and unethical to engage in character assassination of the author. He is one of your own adding his voice to the people who want the same thing you do, to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism.. And for that, you make personal attacks when the book had not been read.

The point is he is one of your own. Like the book or not, some do and some don't as is the case with everything, there is no need for character assassination and denigration. Just read the posts. All you do is put the boots in, by apologising for disturbing electrons - goodness how superior and Narcissistic is that?

You have not read it all the way through because you thought it so terrible. OK so why put the boots into the author? That is not a nice way to treat ONE OF YOUR OWN. Trying to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism. Does not mean character assassination of someone who wants the same as you - That is not Kent Hovind - it is one of your own.

OK so you didn't like it - so where I come from we always say - Do better or shut up.

again whats that got to do with it ?- change the record mate



saying we don't like his book -or the bits of it we have read- is not character assassination

considering you haven't read it yourself is a bit rich to give out to those of us who have made some effort -and it was some effort believe me



ah trowing the toys out of the pram and spitting out the dummy is hardly one of those logical and rational arguments you profess to cling so dear to your little antipodean heart now is it?

Not sure what "one of your own" means in this context. I do not lend people extra credence or extra lee way merely because they are part of some arbitrary grouping or other than I am also part of. IF the book is good, it is good and we should say so. IF the book is poor then it is poor and we should say so. Simply crying "But we are one of you" does not make the book any better or worse.

I am not sure I follow this thread at all. I can not tell who is serious and who is joking. Buzz said he wrote this book? If that is so then I would not be very inclined to read it given his posting history on this forum and his entirely unsubstantiated attacks on JWs by trying to twist and bend statistics to make them look insane and homicidal.

He displayed on this forum what was EITHER a complete lack of any ability, skill or understanding with relation to things like mental illness, mathematics, statistics and more.... OR an understanding of these things coupled instead with a happy willingness to twist and lie using them in order to reach an otherwise baseless conclusion.... followed of course with outright insult and invective leveled against anyone who disagreed with his position.

Regardless of which of these two it is, I am not inclined to read a book by him. In my opinion anything written by such a user is.... while free.... STILL over priced.

Which all torpedoes any "one of our own" arguments you might make as it is people operating at that level that give "our own" a bad name, not a good one. The likes of Buzz are an embarrassment to our site and our movement. He is nowhere even remotely "one of our own" and I identify with not just little, but NOTHING he said while on this forum.

The only other thing I see therefore on this thread is not one, but two users... possibly sock puppets for all I know.... joining this forum to post nothing but recommendations for this book. You seem to like "one of your own" arguments so let me make one. I have no issue with "one of our own".... that is.... someone who actually uses this forum..... recommending or discussing good or bad books.

However when people join a forum solely and specifically to promote a product... without engaging in another thread or any other discussion.... that is not "one of our own" engaging in discussion. That is something else entirely. Something very simple and well defined.

Spam.

Nothing more. Nothing less. Were someone to ask my recommendation I would say your posts, like that of all spammers, should be moved to the hidden spam bin and the spamming accounts locked.

Cracker:

As you're new to the forum and presumably know nothing about the author other than what you have read in the book ( ), you may like to learn a bit more about him. I suggest you start with this thread: viewtopic.php?&t=4172

Done? OK. I'm sure having read all that you're not too worried about his character being assassinated any more. He's an obnoxious, contemptible person who is incapable of reasoned argument. He had time to write a book only because he was banned from all the forums he used to frequent and spray with bullshit. Had he taken his manuscript to a publisher instead of a website designer, he would have been politely but insistently told that it was not suitable for publication, and was far beyond something an editor could fix.

You and the members are saying in this thread, that:

a. Schizophrenics are harmless and never commit any homicides.

and

b. Jehovah's Witnesses have no problems with Schizophrenia, none whatsoever.

And you argue these points despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And if anyone is an obnoxious and contemptible person who is incapable of reasoned argument, its you. What I see here is someone presenting what he sees to be the case, which I may add on a very serious subject, and presenting evidence, that you simply ignore and in return hand out abuse. You are very good at abusing people, which makes you obnoxious and contemptible.