5 comments about The Atheist's Bible: An Illustrious Collection of Irreverent Thoughts.

1. A quick read because there's not all that much actual material in the book. It has some interesting insights, some great humor,and a lot of empty space. I think the book would better if another section had been added with core essays on the subject. As it stands, you get too little book for the money.



2. Not a bad collection, but I can only read a collection of one-to-two line quotes for so long. Very light reading. Good for the restroom, perhaps.



3. This is an excellent collection of quotes. Some stir deep thoughts while others bring laughs.
   
   I recommend this book but I do question the title. It seems to suggest that it is something more than a book of quotes. If you don't expect anything more than that, however, you are likely to be happy with the book.
   
   --Guy P. Harrison, author of 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God
   
   I also recommend these books:
   
   The Quotable Atheist: Ammunition for Non-Believers, Political Junkies, Gadflies, and Those Generally Hell-Bound
   
   The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark



4. I really enjoyed this book for what it is, a collection of quotes and thoughts from famous atheists and other writers (not all of the quotes reflect the authors true feelings and beliefs as some were taken from works of fiction).
   
   I ordered this for my Kindle and read it the first time in only two days. Then I reread it slowly, this time saving the quotes with the Kindle's built in notes feature. I have read many of these quotes before, but I did find at least ten excerpts that I had never heard before and that I will memorize and use them when the time is right.
   
   I do wish that this book was a little more academic. There were many times that I was puzzled that the author did not include some important and well known quotes on a particular subject. For instance, Mark Twain was once asked if he was afraid of death. He reportedly answered "I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit." I also thought that the structure of the book (the order of the chapters and the names of them) were a little weak. Other than that, I endorse this book and recommend it to others who are looking for this type of reference.



5. A book that carries the title of "The Atheist's Bible" sure sounds interesting. Based on the title alone, one might surmise that it is an epic treatise on atheism. One also might guess it will be something, well, biblical in grandeur. Prepare to be disappointed. Amazon doesn't delve into too much detail describing the book and sadly, I didn't do much research on it before buying it. It is nothing more than quote mining. Literally nothing but quotes, with no commentary on the quotes themselves and no information on the people (or fictional charcters) that uttered or wrote the words. There is no insight into the context of these quotes or the societal conditions of when they materialized. That's too bad because it seems there was a missed oppurtunity here.
   That being said, the quotes are quite good and entertaining, but as another reviewer suggested, this book is a perfect ultra-light read while sitting upon a porcelain throne.

No comments about Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists.

5 comments about God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins.

1. Baaah, baaah.
   
   The fact is, that the human ego cannot admit to itself that, yes, "YOU" WILL END. There IS a finality -- you don't go on... there is no everlasting life. Religion was born as a control mechanism for people who can't deal with the fact that there is nothing more beyond their death. It makes death more palatable.
   
   I used to wonder how very intelligent and logical people can use deductive reasoning to come up with the most brilliant things, yet those same minds can't get away from the fairy-tale of religion. Then, I got it. The human mind is so full of itself that it can't comprehend the total and complete end if itself! It just can't.
   
   If people thought that there way nothing beyond them, many would simply do as they wish with no consideration of consequence. Religion = control of the masses. Those with half a brain can understand that you can be moral and NOT religious. It's a matter of accepting your temporary time in this universe and contribute while you can. Then, you're done. That's it. Nothing else.



2. Others here have ably provided detailed reviews, so I'll just add my voice to the chorus by more generally recommending this book.
   
   Thomas Crean's tone here is as magnanimous as Richard Dawkins' is pusillanimous. This contrast alone is a sight to behold, and is itself most instructive. More importantly, Crean methodically destroys Dawkins' arguments (in fact Crean shows that Dawkins' book contains very little argumentation). Indeed he does so to the point that Dawkins is, sadly, revealed as both a rank demagogue and as philosophically/theologically illiterate. I actually felt vicariously embarrassed for Dawkins while reading this book. Do read it and see for yourself.
   
   C.S. Lewis quipped: "A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere."
   
   This is one of them.
   
   P.S. After finishing this book, two things popped to mind:
   
   First, this: "Today's legions of exquisitely 'open' and 'free' minds, those unshackled by emotionalism and wedded only to pure reason - i.e., our alleged 'freethinkers' - must read this book. Or are they not open?"
   
   Second, I considered what kind of press release Dick Dawkins might come up with, in an ideal world, after reading this book. Here's what flashed through my mind:
   
   "People, stop buying my book! Stop buying it immediately! O heavy burden! I've just learned that it's bunk! I've just been shown that I'm a common philosophical and theological illiterate! O the shame! My full retraction is forthcoming."
   
   Dawkins would then make the typical circus rounds - Larry, Greta, Keith, Diane, and all the rest - to get this message out, all leading to a crescendo of intoxicating, tearful absolution from Oprah Herself.
   
   Alas, Dawkins has shown no such shame, nor have any of his fellow atheist evangelists. After all, the money is rolling in. Yet one may dream!
   
   "O age, thou art shamed.* O shame, where is thy blush?**"
   
   -Shakespeare, Julius Caesar*, Hamlet**



3. Just like the bible itself it's nothing but vomit inducing garbage. This author hasn't refuted a single thing. Not one point that was really valid. However, you can't blame the author because he, like all simple minded bible freaks, beliefs that the bible is evidence. This author couldn't even touch the brilliance of Dawkin's arguments. This book, just like any other critique on religion, creates fear among the gullible that their little frail Christian card house will collapse; which I have no doubt it will some day.



4. In the Amazon featured excerpt, the author attempts to take apart Dawkins' philosophical argument about complexity not being a good argument for the existence of god. In doing so, he subtly redefines Dawkins' argument. Learn to recognize this tactic; it's how religious types and politicians win arguments. Basically Dawkins says (paraphrased):
   
   "Religious folk insist there must be a creator because the universe is very complex and therefore must be designed. However, if there was such a creator, then must he not also be very complex? And then doesn't the same argument apply to him?"
   
   Crean then positions this as an argument intended to disprove god and proceeds to rip it apart from that angle. It's not. That's simply the only angle he can refute! Really it's just saying that the complexity argument is not a compelling one for PROVING the existence of a god.
   
   There is, of course, no way to disprove god any more than you can disprove there is an invisible faerie on my shoulder sprinkling people with invisible dust as they walk by. Dawkins admits this freely. This is the whole point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - when you advance an idea, such as god or plate tectonics or cold fusion, the burden is not upon others to disprove your idea. It is upon you to PROVE it! Central to Crean's criticism in this particular counter-argument is god not being material, but being Spirit. Okay, so what is that? Saying something like that is akin to saying "it's magic."
   
   People believe in religion for complex reasons. The very definition of faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." So why are people like Crean trying to wrap logical arguments around their belief? If you have faith then just be proud to say, "I believe this and no amount of reasoned argument will see me change my mind." I can respect that more, although it sounds very close to what you will hear from mental patients.
   
   "When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."
   - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance



5. Fr. Crean's refutation is both substantive and a pleasure to read. Crean very fairly, and GOOD-HUMOREDLY, makes quick work of what passes for the "new atheist" arguments and devotes the rest of the book's pages to outlining several very interesting Christian arguments. The book's a valuable addition to my little library and one I'll certainly reread more than a few times.

5 comments about Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

1. This book was so depressing that it took a few chapters to get past that 'dark' feeling. How anyone could read about religion's history and not feel depressed is beyond me.
   But the information was so hard-hitting that it opens your eyes (unless religion has them locked shut) to what has been going on in the past 2 millenia. It's easy to see why this kind of information is suppressed in our religion-dominated culture.
   A book like this would have never even made it into print until now, and even now only in non-theocratic countries. Also the author would never have been allowed to survive (and wouldn't today if he tried this in a Muslim country). I'm sure the 'fatwa' has already been issued by our god-loving, forgiving and tolerant Muslim brothers (and the Christians aren't any happier - maybe they'll issue a "joint" fatwa).



2. I had for a long time believed that god's & religions were an invention of man. This publication was a terrific aid in discovering what I needed to decide that I was a humanist, a polite label for an atheist. You too will enjoy this book if you are looking for proof of what cannot be found in any bible.



3. A whirlwind read because of its passionate oratorial style reminiscent of evangelical speakers. His attacks are as devastating as pulpit attacks on satan. There is nothing of merit or redeeming social value in any of the religions he attacks. Equally worthy of his passion is secular or christian atheism because it does not give reason its proper glorification. According to him, such a compromising attitude only leads to tolerance of superstition and irrationality and complete relativism, the very same sin that the religious seem to fear also. In his passion he fails to differentiate between intolerance that demands punishment and/or withholding privileges and the intolerance of rational people of good will who demand reasons over feelings. He comes across as the very type of person he preaches against, a theocrat with his view of reason as the arbiter of truth. Just because of his extreme position it is a fascinating read. Sam Harris is much more balanced presenting very much the same position.



4. A manifesto, unlike a treatise, is allowed to proclaim rather than argue. This may be why the English publishers of Onfrey's Traite d'atheologie changed the title for this translation. The book is an admirable manifesto--fiery, angry, apocalyptic--but it's hardly a treatise that presents arguments in defense of its claims. Readers who are used to the analytic defenses of atheism characteristic of the Anglo-American philosophical tradition may find themselves perplexed by Onfray's more aphoristic, impressionistic approach.
   
   After a few preliminary remarks on the need to take the Enlightenment ideals of reason seriously, Onfrey proceeds in his Manifesto to focus almost exclusively on dissecting the world's three monotheisms: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. His remarks will be familiar to readers who know their Nietzche, Feuerbach, and Freud. What may be surprising are the rather bizarre non sequitors with which Onfray sprinkles his narrative: for example, Hitler was a Catholic and justified racial genocide by appealing to Jesus's cleansing of the Temple (pp. 166-67); monotheistic religions require mutilation of the genitalia because monotheistic deities hate sexuality (pp. 107-109); monotheisms are aggressively anti-intellectual (pp. 51-55). Such claims fly in the face of empirical evidence: Hitler's disdainful repudiation of Christianity, the fact that medical circumcision does nothing to lessen sexual pleasure, and Islamic medieval astronomy, medicine, and mathematics.
   
   The tone of anger escalates as the book proceeds. Onfray seems convinced that the world is headed toward a final showdown between religion and secularism, and he ends on an ominously apocalyptic note. In his final condemnation of monotheistic "discourse of neurosis, hysteria, and mysticism," he insists that "we can no more tolerate neutrality and benevolence toward every conceivable form of discourse, including that of magical thinking, than we can lump together executioner and victim...Must we remain neutral? Can we afford to? I do not think so" (p. 219).
   
   There are excellent recent defenses of atheism available from both the Continental tradition (Andre Comte-Sponville's The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality)and the analytic one (Michael Martin's The Cambridge Companion to Atheism). Readers interested in exploring atheism in a rigorous way might want to consult them instead of Onfray. There is much heat in his Manifesto, but relatively little light.



5. Has some good stuff about Pauls hysteria and how the cult of jesus got started and how it became an official religion.THE GOD DELUSION was much better.I may go back and re read some parts of the atheist manifesto but over all Its only worth one read.

5 comments about The Didymus Contingency: A Time Travel Thriller.

1. The plot is average, although the basic idea is quite good!
   I found the character development too shallow!
   
   BUT, the biggest problem of this book is the number of typos!
   It really becomes annoying even for a non-native English speaker
   as I am! The editor tried to make some savings here!
   
   I guess there other better edited/printed books around with
   equally good stories! Would not really reccomend it!



2. This review applies to the Lulu published version.
   ___________________________________________________
   I don't know if this was the purpose of the novel but Jeremy Robinson has given a phenomenal Christian testimony with the Didymus Contingency. The time travel thriller will keep you glued to its pages like flypaper. More importantly, it will stick to your mind and soul as well. Robinson's portrayal of a human, accessible Christ is a service to Christianity. His blending of real Biblical scenes and fictitious happenings is masterful. His ability to create fantastic dialog between characters is extraordinary. I found his character development of characters like Judas and Jesus to be touching and enlightening. Any Christian would be well-served in reading this work. It will give you a brand new view on how to look at the personalities in the Bible. Mr. Robinson makes it clear that his work is fiction but some of us would love to believe it to be fact. The main characters Tom and David are equally deep and interesting personalities. Their dynamic of a religiously faithful man and a secular-thinking scientist makes for engaging and interesting conversations. Let me say that the ending is nothing short of fantastic.
   
   
   
   Bottom-line: If you are a sci-fi fan, buy this novel. If you are a Christian or not, this time bending, roller coaster ride is not to be missed! And you might find yourself thinking about God in the process.



3. Whether you find yourself a believer of the Christian Bible or not, author Jeremy Robinson has crafted a sci-fi thriller that any history or sci-fi enthusiast will love. He has created a character, a quantum physicist named Tom, who has the brains, the ability and the resources to use science in creating a way to travel in time.
   
   Through a series of events, he also has a strong, personal motive to travel back to the time of Jesus of Nazareth for one purpose: to prove the man is a fake. But when he meets Jesus, he is surprised at how "human" this so-called deity really is. The author paints a refreshing picture of the historical Jesus through his novel that makes you reconsider your own view of the man.
   
   Where the author's skills shine and where the books develops its paged-turning, hard-to-put-down quality is in the way the author creates his fiction in a way that's true to the historical texts he uses as a reference. Each section is filled with dangers from the current timeline as well as dangers from the first century. Through it all, Tom continues to the bitter end in proving that his friend, which Jesus becomes to him, is, indeed, a fake. The scientist in him forces him to seek the truth in spite of his feelings.
   
   Through the well-crafted words of a fast-paced thriller, the author takes you on a journey of one man's personal pursuit for the truth, regardless of what history, and his closest friends may think. This is one journey you will be glad you took with Tom.



4. This book has a very different premise...time travel to the time of Jesus. The story was very researched and a thrill to read. I loved the subject matter as it combined both "thriller" and religious aspects. It made me think, laugh and cry! I highly recommend this book!



5. I was looking for another off shoot of The Da Vinci Code, so perhaps this is why this book was so disappointing. The writing for me was too bland. Robinson could have taken the theme and run away with it. Unfortunately, all he did was walk. A "nice" read, but nothing extraordinary.

5 comments about I Don't Believe in Atheists.

1. I haven't read the atheists' books referred to in this book, because I don't believe in atheists either, and don't much care for their ravings... so cannot comment on the analysis. But after wading through the book I found the last chapter, The Elusive Self, worth the price of admission. Hedges rightly condemns the utter vapidity of our television-defined, delusional consumer culture and loss of moral guides, and selects nuanced quotes from the intellectually wise that point to the simple hopes and possibilities of religion.



2. Chris Hedges grew up as a pastor's kid in rural upstate New York, where his father was a Presbyterian pastor. Six days after graduating from Colgate University he began a two year stint as a pastor in the violent ghetto of Roxbury in metro Boston, an experience so unsettling that he left the church and seminary. After a year in South America he completed his degree at Harvard Divinity School, though not without caustic opinions about his liberal professors who romanticized the poor whom they had never met, and the lectures which he experienced as "intellectual shell games." Then, for twenty years, he covered a dozen wars in Central America, Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans.
   
   These life experiences deeply inform Hedges's writing. He's been around the block and he does not suffer armchair pundits easily, which is about the nicest description he might use about the so-called new atheists like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. This book originated with his separate debates with Harris and Hitchens at UCLA in May of 2007. These atheists, says Hedges, are the reverse image of fundamentalist Christians. He derides them as "carnival barkers" whose stock in trade includes gross intolerance for any "other" who is different from them, facile analysis, the abuse of evolutionary biology as a "surrogate religion," the confusion of scientific progress with moral progress, racist and crude generalizations (especially about Muslims), and a "staggering historical and cultural illiteracy." But that's not the bad part.
   
   What really angers Hedges about the new atheists is their uncritical belief in the utopia promised by the Enlightenment thanks to the inevitable progress of science and the innate goodness and rationality of humanity. He's outraged at their evangelistic effort to remake the world in the image of an ostensibly "enlightened" west. He quotes Harris and Hitchens who recommend slaughtering unwilling converts. Which proves his point, that "reigns of terror are the [...] children of the Enlightenment." Muslims have a long way to go before they catch up with the tens of millions of people, mainly civilians, slaughtered by the Nazis, the Soviets, and the Chinese (149).
   
   Drawing upon heavy doses of Nietzsche, Freud, Dostoyevsky, Reinhold Niebuhr, Samuel Beckett, and Joseph Conrad, Hedges urges us to recover our sense of the fallenness of humanity. We must repudiate our smug and self-congratulatory self-image as morally pure purveyors of enlightenment, for "to turn away from God is harmless." But "to turn away from sin," which is what the new atheists do, "is catastrophic." Divine intervention in the world, he suggests, is "absurd" (13), history appears "purposeless" (42), and human nature remains "irredeemable" (67, 151). Rejecting absolutisms of all kinds, we must embrace our limitations and imperfections. The utopian dreamers, "lifting up impossible ideals, plunge us into depravity and violence." Only in such brokenness and humility can we see "the limits of reason and the possibilities of religion" (185).



3. He basically states that Dawkins, Harris and the like have created a new fundamentalism that's as scary and illogical as any religious fundamentalist, which I completely agree with. But his book is just a big pot of ill will he stirs, basically asserting that humans are intrinsically evil and left to their own devices, will destroy one another and eventually civilization.
   
   There's a lot of name calling, a lot of straw man arguments and not much else. Some good thoughts here and there, but mostly a disjointed, disorganized batch of hostile essays.
   
   He also seems to be of the opinion that Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens believes that the world will become a utopia if religion is banished. I'm not that well read in these men, but I don't recall any such assertion in what I have read. If anything, it's widely out of character for these guys. All of these guys can be accused of making unreasonable attacks on religion, but the picture painted by Hedges is inaccurate and dogmatic.



4. This book helped me sharpen my understanding of a challenging issue in our times: identifying what you believe -- and why. I do not share the author's faith base but I was energized by how he defended it. The book is an introduction to logic and apologetics.



5. This book is not about religion, it is about the blinkered thinking of some leading athiests who fall into the trap of doing exactly what those they criticise do: simply attempting to polarise views into "us" and "them".
   Hedges references well his arguments throughout the book. One does not need to agree with his assessment of all religions, however, what he has revealed about the goals and the stated methods to achieve these goals by leading proponents of athiesm is very very eye opening.
   This is a very significant book, it shows that fundamentalism also exists amongst athiests and this fundamentalism can be just as dangerous as any other.
   Hedges presents compelling argument as to why fundamentalist athiests deserve to be considered in the same light as religious fundamentalists and rightly outlines through numerous examples that these are as closed minded as each other.
   The book contains many very useful quotes from the leading athiests of our time, these quotes show that their rhetoric and their solutions are just as perturbing as those touted by religious extremists.
   This book is well worth reading and recommending to others, I have already ordered a copy for a friend.

5 comments about The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality.

1. This book did not deliver anything new to me. I kept hoping it would get better, but it didn't. It was so boring I fell asleep a couple times. The author drones on and on and doesn't say anything new and what he does say is usually a quote by someone else. He didn't seem to have many original thoughts about anything. Name dropping gets boring after a while. I think he's still trying to figure out if he's an atheist or not. I can't recommend this book when there are so many better ones out there.



2. The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by Andre Comte-Sponville
   
   A Review by TCDavis
   
   
   In Yann Martel's provocative novel, The Life of Pi, , a young East Indian boy tells the rabbi, imam, and pastor of his small home town that he is a Jew, a Muslim, and a Christian--all three at once! They are nonplussed, and cannot abide this most peculiar faith; but their rejection of Pi's universalism does not dissuade him from maintaining in his heart and mind a grandly spacious place, large enough for even agnostics and atheists. This reader has striven for a long time to construct such a welcoming place in his own mind. His heart has dwelt there for as long as he can remember, but his mind is still struggling to make the move. Is it not so with many people? Their hearts are readier to extend welcome than their minds. Minds hold back until communion with strangers, or even enemies, makes some kind of sense. Pity that reluctant minds refuse to permit wise hearts to dwell where they know best.
   
   
   Imagine this reader's delight, therefore, upon discovering Nancy Huston's translation of Andre Comte-Sponville's L'Esprit de l'atheisme, The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality. The word, spirituality, caught my eye, for atheists don't usually speak of it. However, Comte-Sponville's book is not the usual rationalist diatribe against believers' metaphysical misadventures. Rather, it is an attempt to make metaphysics once again respectable in western philosophy, and to give atheism at least as much respect as the world's great theistic traditions. Comte-Sponville, unlike some current militant atheists, is not out to debunk others' faith. Once a Catholic, he sympathetically comprehends and respects believers' positions, and adds that he has often yearned to experience the presence of God himself. He does not refuse to believe, but simply argues he cannot, with intellectual integrity.
   
   
   Comte-Sponville is a professor of philosophy at the Sorbonne. He wants his little book to be accessible to average readers. This reader judges he has fallen short, not because of his writing style, which the translator keeps nicely colloquial, but rather because of the nuanced thought of philosophers to whom he often refers, and with whom an average reader will not likely be familiar; and also because he sometimes resorts to labyrinthine argument to drive home a point. Comte-Sponville succeeds best in making atheism spiritually respectable where he writes of his own experience. This reader, who eventually became a Christian pastor following a peak spiritual experience in Vietnam at age twenty-five, found Comte-Sponville's peak spiritual experience remarkably similar to his own. Comte-Sponville describes his experience this way:
   
   
   "I must have been twenty-five or twenty-six. I had just been hired to teach high school philosophy in a town on the edge of a canal, up in the fields near the Belgian border. That particular evening, some friends and I had gone out for a walk in the forest we liked so much. Night had fallen. We were walking. Gradually our laughter faded, and the conversation died down. Nothing remained but our friendship, our mutual trust and shared presence, the mildness of the night air and of everything around us. . .My mind empty of thought, I was simply registering the world around me--the darkness of the underbrush, the incredible luminosity of the sky, the faint sounds of the forest (branches snapping, an occasional animal call, our own muffled steps) only making the silence more palpable. And then, all of a sudden. . . What? Nothing: everything! No words, no meanings, no questions, only--a surprise. Only--this. A seemingly infinite happiness. A seemingly eternal sense of peace. Above me, the starry sky was immense, luminous and unfathomable, and within me there was nothing but the sky, of which I was a part, and the silence, and the light, like a warm hum, and a sense of joy with neither subject nor object (no object other than everything, no subject other than itself). Yes, in the darkness of that night, I contained only the dazzling presence of the All. Peace. Infinite peace! Simplicity, serenity, delight."
   
   
   My heart says to this atheistic professor of philosophy: "We are kin, you and I! For we have experienced the same thing. It matters not that we have come to the peak by different ways. Our experience was the same. We tasted, albeit briefly, ultimate reality. You call it "the All." I call it God. Words fail to do it justice, whichever ones we choose. The experience, though, indisputably changed our lives, forever. Thank you, Andre Comte-Sponville. Your little book has helped my mind grasp a bit more firmly what my heart has known as long as I can remember: that there's plenty of room in the All for believers and atheists alike.



3. Although saddled with a horribly mistranslated title by its English publisher, Andre Comte-Sponville's L'esprit de l'atheisme is one of the best books on atheism of our day. Unlike the current wave of militant "New Atheists," Comte-Sponville refuses to embrace a take-no-prisoners aggressiveness in his defense of disbelief in God. Instead, he's perfectly content to follow the argument where it takes him, exploring it with compassion, tolerance, and sensitivity. This is wisdom, not polemic, and it's a welcome change from the acrimonious tone brought to the conversation by militant atheists and fundamentalists alike.
   
   C-S's general thesis is that there is no rational reason to believe in the existence of God, and in the middle section of his book he offers six different arguments in support of that claim. Some of his points are stronger than others; the argument from evil carries more weight than the argument from mediocrity; the objection to the argument from contingency is almost nonexistent, whereas the objection based on the sheer weirdness of a hidden God is exceptionally good. C-S insists (rightfully, in my judgment) that his six arguments don't constitute a "proof of God's nonexistence" (p. 131), but they do present a reasonable case. And for C-S, that's good enough.
   
   But arguing for disbelief in God is only part of what C-S's up to here. In the opening and closing chapters, he argues that lack or loss of belief in God (specifically the Judaeo-Christian God, since it's within that religious context that he locates himself) doesn't entail either sophistry or nihilism (both postmodern corruptions which, accordinig to C-S, deny truth on the one hand and value on the other). Fidelity to a long tradition of values associated with western Christianity--love, compassion, gratitude, awe--remains legitimate. The one standard virtue that needs to be rethought, he argues, is "hope," because it deflects from an appreciation of the present. Moreover, spirituality--an expression of the need to acknowledge and embrace the awe and gratitude prompted by the mystery of being that originally fueled religious belief and which obviously don't evaporate when religion fades--is possible for an atheist. In the concluding chapter, C-S explores the contours of this spirituality of immanence, which he calls "immanensity."
   
   What C-S offers in this treatise, then, is nothing less than the broad outline of an atheist worldview. Although deeply loyal to the Enlightenment tradition of rationality, C-S's approach is different--less tightly argued but more expansive--than typical Anglo-American defenses of atheism. As such, his treatment is a nice complement to them.
   
   Highly recommended.



4. I recomend this book to anyone who wants to know what atheism is really about. It is not just the rejection of the existence of God, but also a heightened spirituality. Unlike some reviewers, I think that he does well at putting into language some of the experiences and thoughts one can have as an atheist contemplating spiritual matters. If you are already up to date on your arguments against the existence of God, then his chapter on this will not be all that interesting. However, his final chapter is, where he outlines what he believes about the universe. At tiems I found him to drone on in inspiration a little too much, but what is there to expect from someone trying to communicate as a modern Western thinker? I will say that the language of the East is still superior in describing spiritual matters, but Comte-Sponville does an admirable job.



5. In this book, Andre Comte-Sponville present his view of his atheistic existence, and it is a kinder, gentler atheism than the one presented by Hitchens and Harris.
   This book is divided into three parts, and the first part "Can We Do Without Religion?" is one of the best descriptions of the role religions should play in society - emphasizing community, shared memory (fidelity), and love. Within these confines, even an atheist should grab hold of "religion" (now loosely defined, as he examines it without God) and the role it plays in society.
   His second part on "Does God Exist?" (his answer is a simple no) is very lucid, although goes over ground more fully explored by Dawkins and Harris.
   His third part "Can there be an atheist spirituality?" (to which he answers yes) gets a bit overinflated, but is still a useful discussion and antidote to those who argue that atheism would suck the joy and wonder out of existence. Comte-Sponville argues instead atheism should lincrease the joy and wonder we find in our lives - a usuful concept to be sure.
   Overall, a well thought out, simply argued, and lucid exploration of the practical effects an atheistic worldview can assume in one person's life and personal philosophy.

1 comments about Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity.

1. John W. Loftus has written an important book that should be read by every Christian who cares about truth and reality. This is not the angry rant of some disgruntled former believer with an axe to grind. Loftus is thorough, fair and convincing. As a former Christian minister and apologist who became an atheist, he knows both sides of the belief question very well.
   
   The insights and detailed information contained in this book make for enlightening reading. There is much for everyone, from believers who are courageous enough to think more deeply about their faith to nonbelievers who want to better understand the arguments Christians make in defense of their religion. I highly recommend this book.
   
   
   
   --Guy P. Harrison, author of 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God

No comments about Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheists.

No comments about No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers.