Good point about Deism. Mind you, I'm a live and let live kinda
   guy. People can believe what they wish. I just want people to
   know what they get into.

   The New Atheist movement for example, has Deified a number of
   human philosophies and can't see it, so focused on going after
   the obvious fakers and frauds - easy marks like snake handlers
   and TV preachers, while not seeing Maharishi with his arm over
   the shoulder going, "yes, yes, you're not religious. Why, you're
   not even spiritual. There's no God. There's just the Universe,
   and You're just in awe of the Universe as it is and You are one
   with it because your matter came from the Stars."

   I've been influenced by it. It's hard not to be. Humans are
   hard-wired for Awe and I think awe is a very healthy part of
   being human. I think a mystical experience, however one gets it,
   *is* a good thing; it keeps us psychologically from being
   depressed, fatalist, etc.

   So perhaps books like this are ok in the big picture. The 21st
   century seems to need a 'new religion' and having
   Scientists-as-Saints isn't the worst thing I suppose.

   I just wish they'd see it for what it is when embracing it.
   Plus, it's not you Sloan; you're a critical thinker, which is
   why I didn't hesitate to put my thoughts here.

   My rant stems from years of debating new atheism online.. and
   want to scream when I see the same historical errors popping up
   over and over again in popular books, preached from the Science
   channel by theoretical physicists... and well... I guess that's
   it really. I think when I saw jh mention Atheist Universe -
   that's what kicked it off for me. David Mills - the author of
   that book, also repeats the same gross historical errors as the
   rest of the new atheist movement...

   ... and I guess in the end I'm just really really anal about
   historical accuracy. Sorry tongue emoticon I also didn't finish
   my coffee yet.