Talk:The Twilight of Atheism

Notability

O for heaven's sake - the guy's one of the world's leading theologians, written over 100 books, Prof at Oxford, this has been reviewed in many papers etc... NBeale 17:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Belief

I have deleted a new paragraph on "Subsequent developments". Nothing whatever to do with McGrath or this book! Snalwibma 07:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have deleted it again. In the edit summary it is claimed to be relevant because it is "a confirmation of his thesis". You may consider that the statement you pull out of the conference literature (which does not, incidentally, fairly summarise the conference) is such a confirmation. But the link to McGrath exists only in your mind. There is no explicit link between the conference and McGrath's book. The addition is therefore in breach of WP:OR. It does not belong here. Snalwibma 08:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Review quote

To 132.239.90.218 and Blanchardb: to avoid a nasty edit war, could we decide on this here? Mouse is back 22:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Reviews section should be rewritten and shortened. The text as it appears now belongs on the back cover of the book, not in an encyclopedia article about it. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; however, what about the NR quote? Mouse is back 00:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Debate

According to McGrath, Twilight grew out of a speech he gave at a 2002 debate. However, I have tried and failed to find any report or even advertisement of the event, despite checking widely. It's not on the Oxford Union termcard for the period, or in the Oxford Gazette, or (using Internet archive) on any of the websites of the participants. Nor was it reported in any newspapers, the secular humanist press, or anywhere else I could think of.

Does anyone have any independent clarification of what the debate was about, who took part, and when, and under what auspices?

Ta --Dannyno (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? Anyone? --Dannyno (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter? I remember drawing a horse once because I saw a horse and wanted to portray it on paper. Is it really that important? And for your information, not all of his debates have een at Oxford. If I remember correctly, he toured the US that year. I might be mistaken though. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming it's especially "important". I'm asking whether anyone has the information. I don't care where else he might have spoken in 2002, I just want to know if the 2002 debate was reported anywhere, and if so where. --Dannyno (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section

A reception section should summarise reviews, not quote them verbatim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

This article currently consists of:

A rather uninformative quote from the author.
The book's table of contents.
A WP:QUOTEFARM of reviews.

This is not an encyclopaedic article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic or irenic

When this article, under the section on "Reception", quotes what the National Review says about the book, it says "I find him a shade too irenic". Should this be "ironic"? Vorbee (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]