> does not show as understanding That you are saying I didn't understand the book when presumably you didn't even read the book is true irony. I merely explain

> does not show as understanding That you are saying I didn't understand the book when presumably you didn't even read the book is true irony. I merely explained that it dissects various religious fallacies, that is not throwing stones, as it would be the same as taking a book about mathematical logic and asking why it does not ponder why P ^ ¬P in a philosophical sense; it is not the purpose of this book. It may be the purpose of another one, but not this one.