In fact exactly the opposite is the situation. I knew ahead of time that this guy wouldn’t read a short book, but I posted it for the sake of people who are interested in empiricism and evidence-based thinking.

It’s hard to see how it would be evidence based if the evidence’s premise is fundamentally flawed - just in such a niche way that people not in my field wouldn’t be able to see it. They’re kinda preying on the fact that people like you can’t see it, and that’s sad.

Just read the book. If it is so terrible then you can write a review demolishing it.

No. I know it's nonsense even without reading it, because it starts from a false premise.

What is the false premise?

The false premise is that the religious explanation is the default or incumbent explanation, which must then be bettered or countered by "challenger" explanations such as science. It tries to frame the argument with religion as the "defending champion" for challengers to somehow unseat ("atheists need to explain how...").

In reality, of course, religious explanation has no such presumptive default or incumbent status. Religious explanations are just one of many potential explanations for how the world works and compete on equal terms with any other. And when the religious explanation really just boils down to some variant of "god did it", it becomes very obvious how inadequate that is compared to even the worst scientific attempts.

Related: religious apologists constantly try to pretend that criticisms or problems identified with scientific explanations somehow count as points in favor of their religious alternative. This is also a false idea. It is not a debate, where pointing out flaws in your opponent's argument helps yours "win". It is a search for truth, and finding fault with another theory does nothing at all to enhance your own.

Why do you think the book has anything to do with religion.

It does not.

Here are some example chapter titles:

Homochitality of building blocks

Boipolymer Reproduction

Means of Gene Regulation

Selectively Permeable Membranes

The whole book is just an examination of such scientific issues.

Religion doesn’t come in to it anywhere.

Get outta here with your BS.

"One purpose of this book is to call out and clarify the leap of faith that atheism implies." - p185

You're now just straight up lying and I'm done with you.

Breaking the site guidelines like this will get your account banned on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are, or how badly someone else is behaving.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

Understood. I apologise for stepping over the line.

We've banned this account for starting and perpetuating flamewars on HN and ignoring our requests to stop.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Please don't perpetuate religious flamewars on HN. It's the last thing we need here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40648381 also, because you broke the site guidelines badly downthread.