4 comments about Does God Exist: The Craig-Flew Debate.

1. Does God Exist? is based on the 1998 public debate between Christian philosopher William Craig and atheist philosopher Anthony Flew. The debate itself was held on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of a similarly titled debate between Russell and Copleston in 1948.

   The layout follows a common format for debate-type books. First, a transcript of the debate is provided, followed by comments from subject matter experts representing both sides of the argument. Finally, the debaters are given an opportunity to make closing comments and respond to points raised by the other contributors.

   The debate itself was quite good with the discussion covering all the major arguments, cosmological, teleological, existence of evil, etc. In fact, the 1998 debate was superior to the Russell-Copeston debate wherein Russell was largely evasive and did not actively engaged in debate (still an interesting read though). For those new to this area William Craig is the preeminent contemporary Christian apologist (arguably also one of the finest current day philosophers). In addition to his impressive intellectual abilities Craig is a brilliant debater and excellent communicator. Anthony Flew is also a well-known philosopher who has written and debated on the existence of God and other related philosophical questions. Although I respect Flew as a philosopher, he was overmatched by Craig both intellectually and rhetorically.

   In my opinion the weakest part of the book was the commentary by the subject matter experts. This is unfortunate, because quite often it is one of the more enjoyable aspects of this format. Michael Martin's comments were interesting, however, the others particularly David and Keith Yandell were weak and added little.

   In summary, good book that provides a strong overview of contemporary arguments for and against the existence of God. If someone were to read just one book of this type, however, I would recommend God? God? is a debate on the same issue between Craig and Walter-Sinnott-Armstrong. Craig is outstanding in both these efforts, but Sinnott -Armstrong presents a stronger case than Flew for atheism.




2. An intellectual bombshell dropped last week when British professor Antony Flew, for decades one of the world's leading philosophers of atheism, publicly announced that he now affirms the existence of a deity.
   
   To be sure, Mr. Flew has not become an adherent of any creed. He simply believes that science points to the existence of some sort of intelligent designer of the universe. He says evidence from DNA research convinces him that the genetic structure of biological life is too complex to have evolved entirely on its own. Though the 81-year-old philosopher believes Darwinian theory explains a lot, he contends that it cannot account for how life initially began.
   
   We (the Editorial Board of the Dallas Morning News) found this conversion interesting in light of last year's controversy regarding proposed revisions to the state's (Texas) high school biology textbooks. Our view then was that while religion must be kept out of science classes, intellectual honesty demands that when science produces reliable data challenging the prevailing orthodoxies, students should be taught them.
   
   We were bothered by Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin's statement that for scientists, materialism must be "absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." That's called stacking the deck.
   
   Mr. Flew may be dead wrong, but it's refreshing to see that an academic of his stature is unafraid to let new facts change his mind. The philosopher told The Associated Press that if admirers are upset with his about-face, then "that's too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
   
   If the scientific data are compelling enough to cause an atheist academic of Antony Flew's reputation to recant much of his life's work, why shouldn't Texas schoolchildren be taught the controversy?



3. Does God Exist? is based on the 1998 public debate between Christian philosopher William Craig and atheist philosopher Anthony Flew (Flew has recently had a highly publicized albeit somewhat tenuous move into theism). The debate itself was held on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of a similarly titled debate between Russell and Copleston in 1948.
   
   The layout follows a common format for debate-type books. First, a transcript of the debate is provided, followed by comments from subject matter experts representing both sides of the argument. Finally, the debaters are given an opportunity to make closing comments and respond to points raised by the other contributors.
   
   The debate itself was quite good with the discussion covering all the major arguments, cosmological, teleological, existence of evil, etc. In fact, the 1998 debate was superior to the Russell-Copeston debate wherein Russell was largely evasive and did not actively engaged in debate (still an interesting read though). For those new to this area William Craig is the preeminent contemporary Christian apologist (arguably also one of the finest current day philosophers). In addition to his impressive intellectual abilities Craig is a seasoned debater and excellent communicator. Anthony Flew is also a well-known philosopher who has written and debated on the existence of God and other related philosophical questions. Although I respect Flew as a philosopher, he was overmatched by Craig both intellectually and rhetorically in this encounter.
   
   In my opinion the weakest part of the book was the commentary by the subject matter experts. This is unfortunate, because quite often it is one of the more enjoyable aspects of this format. Michael Martin's comments were interesting, however, the others particularly David and Keith Yandell were weak and added little.
   
   In summary, good book that provides a strong overview of contemporary arguments for and against the existence of God. If someone were to read just one book of this type, however, I would recommend God? God? is a debate on the same issue between Craig and Walter-Sinnott-Armstrong. Craig is outstanding in both these efforts, but Sinnott -Armstrong presents a stronger case than Flew for atheism.



4. William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist, debated Antony Flew, a former* atheist philosopher, on the 50th anniversary of the famous Russell-Copelston debate. This book is the product of that.
   
   Craig's arguments are standard and predictable from anyone familiar with Criag, and Flew fizzles, as even atheists William Rowe and Michael Martin admit. Why is the debate so good then? The commentary on the debate by such HUGE names in the field of philosophy of religion as William Rowe, Keith Parsons, Michael Martin, Paul Draper, Douglas Geivett, Keith Yandell, William Wainwright, etc. is what makes the book so great. Representing a varitey of traditions, from militant atheist (Martin and Parsons), Agnosticism (Draper), to theism, these respondents comment on the debate and press the issues deeper than an oral, short, debate allows.
   
   The best part of the book is that Craig and Flew each get a chance to respond to what the other scholars said. Craig's response to objections chapter is worth the entire price of the book. Craig defends his arguments against heavy criticisms from some of the most prolific atheist currently writing. Anyone who wants to read a very good debate (though admittedly tilted for theism) needs to pick this up.

5 comments about Help! I'm a Volunteer Youth Worker.

1. Perfect book to hand out to your youth ministry volunteers, and to go over and discuss. It's a small book, with one bit advice per page. It's not long on words - this thing is not a book about youth ministry, or how to do youth ministry. It's a short, quickie book of reminders to adults of how to interact and be in relationship with young people. So don't get this if you are looking for a how-to book, but definitely get it for something to give to the team, and also for yourself to look over from time to time and be reminded of some relational things you might have forgotten about, etc.

   It's also usable in pretty much every church - whether conservative or liberal, evaneglical, charismatic, or mainline, since it isn't about teaching doctrine, but about how to be with young poeple (and not go insane, and not drive them insane).

   I am quite impressed with it, and certainly think that all youth ministers and youth ministry volunteers should have a copy. Very helpful.




2. This book is very short and to the point (can be fully read while you wait for the pizza man to get to your house.) If you have any prior ministry experience, or doing things with various organizations, you probably don't need this book... though it might be good for refreshing yourself on a couple things. In general, some practical advice.



3. Doug provides 52 great ideas for serving as a volunteer youth worker. The ideas range from the obvious to the amazingly practical (probably depending on how long you've already worked with teens!). It helps that this book can be read in one night (really!) and can be applied in small church contexts of almost any sort.

   The weakness of this book is that it doesn't have much to over beyond the ideas themselves. There are no case studies to illustrate the suggestions made, leaving the reader to figure it out on their own. In the end, Doug passes on a great starter resource worthy of reading, but should not be compared with his more recent and more helpful books.




4. HELP! I'M A VOLUNTEER YOUTH WORKER! by Doug Fields is the book that started the complete HELP! line of youth worker books put out by Youth Specialties. The book serves as a great "jumper cable" to your ministry work. Fields goes through fifty different little ways to help you in ministry to jr. high and high school students. There are a few personal stories littered throughout, helping to drive home the points. Quite a handful of graphics are included - filling up a LOT of space in this 96-page book. The graphics look incredibly cheesy, and probably should have been replaced by more text. A lot of the material here is repeated in quite a few other books on high school ministry, but this is a great resource to have on the shelf - or to take along in the car to a retreat.



5. This little book is insightful, valuable and practical. It's a quick read, and filled with useful suggestions born of Doug Fields' "in the trenches" experience. Whether you are a youth ministry veteran or newcomer, leader or volunteer, you will find something you can apply and make a difference in your group!
   Leslie, a youth leader from Alabama

No comments about The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue.

4 comments about Beginning Apologetics 4: How to Answer Atheists and New Agers.

1. I did not find the arguments in this little book to be much use to me, although perhaps others will. There is not enough information on any of the topics to really substantiate the points that the authors make. In fact, I think that if someone tried to use this book as a primary tool in a conversation with an intelligent and well-educated New Ager or atheist, he would be pretty much shredded. On the other hand, the type size was nice and big.



2. A friend of mine gave me this book when he found out I was an atheist. The book may give "warm fuzzies" to already established christians, but if a christian thinks he can use the arguments presented in this book against an educated atheist then he's wrong. The book is poorly written and seems to bounce around without giving any definitive proof of anything. As an atheist, I've read much better books defending the faith.



3. It is interesting to read the non-believers reviews of this item. What do they have to offer? Nothing but death and despair.
   Greater minds than their's (e.g. Pascal, Eckhart, Augustine, Socrates, Aristotle) have reached different conclusions and what is their reasoned argument? There is none. They just want to do as they wish with no judgement, that is the story, that is liberalism. Hey, if you are happy to be a nihilist, be Satan's guest.



4. This does a decent job of what it sets out to do. It gives a quick overview of some (Catholic) Christian arguments against other ideologies.
   
   It is geared toward helping an uneducated believer to start to gain some understanding of some of the defenses of their faith.
   
   As the atheist reviewer stated, this book will not make much difference to someone with a deep knowledge and/or investment in disbelief, but it might be enough to sway a more everyday half-hearted skeptic. But these are the people that Christians are more likely to help see the light anyway.
   
   People who are strongly committed to a certain belief system (or disbelief system) usually need to experience some kind of trauma to shake up their view of the world.
   
   That said, this does lack depth. I am unsure whether this is the writer's fault, or if is just because of the constraints made by the book's short length.

5 comments about Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe.

1. This is a gem of a book. Rigorous but not rigid, brief but not incomplete, well-argued but not shrill or dismissive. Rather than constructing straw men to attack, Prof. Wielenberg respectfully quotes and exposits some of the most interesting ideas of Christian apologists such as C.S. Lewis, Plantenga, and Craig, then demonstrates with clear prose, accessible formal logic, and examples from literature how those ideas are or could be mistaken. In place of the theistic view, he constructs a cogent case that a godless life can be moral and meaningful--and not in some second-class, grudging way, but in a way that could bring real joy and satisfaction. This book is not perfect, but it's probably "best in class." As useful as some of the more strictly academic books have been to me, I have long wished there was a more popular treatment of morality and meaning from an atheist perspective, and of the current crop of such books, this is the best I've encountered. It is the hallmark of a useful book that it is quoteable--which this book is. Highly recommended.



2. I was disappointed. The book title, and chapter titles, promise a very interesting subject matter, but the book delivers mostly logical syllogisms about the existence of God and morality.
   
   The book looks back in time rehashing old arguments, without managing to peer creatively into a future world without a moral code derived from a divine will.
   
   What happens to value and virtue when the gods are gone? It is an excellent question, which remains unanswered by the author, who only tangentially addresses the issue.



3. This book is a professor's expanded lecture notes for lectures that are probably both challenging and interesting (I'd enjoy auditing those courses). Previous reviews by Robin Friedman and David Sewell describe the overall form of this book well. I want to deal with one particular failing that I found critical.
   
   I read this book in the course of a project to really understand the secular basis for morality. Wielenberg seems to make a good, although overly-cautious and tentative, argument for a secular meaning of life. And he gives an effective critique of the theistic positions of God as the creator of ethics and God as the guarantor of ultimate justice. With this out of the way I turned to Chapter Four, "Ethical Character in a Godless Universe," with high anticipation.
   
   This chapter begins with a digression on how strongly heirarchical the Christian system is, with God at the top, then angels, humans, animals, obligation flowing down and obedience up. This illuminates some aspects of theistic morality but might better be part of a preceding, critical chapter, rather than this, supposedly constructive chapter.
   
   At this point Wieland introduces the idea of "naturalistic humility": that the naturalist has every bit as good a reason to be humble in the face of a risky and contingent universe, as the believer has to be before the throne of God. This section also is original, convincing, and illuminating, and I was excited to see the next heading was "From Humility to Charity."
   
   Alas, here I was disappointed. Wieland claims to bridge the gap from humility to charity: from a solid logical conclusion that we are each of us supremely lucky simply to be alive, even luckier in whatever wealth we may have, he claims to reach an equally solid conclusion that we are obligated to share that wealth with those less fortunate. But he does not! Here are the key sentences (p115):
   
   "This obligation is grounded not in any divine command but instead in the particulars of the situation. Among the more salient features of the situation is the _lack of control_ the two [a hypothetical rich man and poor man] have over their respective fates. If the winds had blown slightly differently, their situations could have been reversed. Is it not clear that it is not morally permissible to refuse entirely to offer any help to the less fortunate who find themselves in difficult circumstances through no fault of their own and who will probably suffer and even perish if we do not help them?"
   
   That's it; the entirety of the logical hookup he makes between humility and charity is in the phrase "Is it not clear that it is not morally permissible..." There is no further exposition of this absolutely crucial point; from here onward in the book he writes as if the point was proven. As near as I can tell, he is making an appeal to empathy (he does not use the word). And the claim is simply not convincing (I don't understand how his students have let him off the hook for this, either).
   
   I can fully imagine a decent naturalist who replies "It is not at all clear to me. Yes, I fully agree the position of those unfortunate people is distressing to them and to me. But I have good reasons to conserve everything I have, indeed to look for more; after all, in the face of this humbling and hostile universe, how can I be sure I won't be in dire straits myself at any minute? In any case, there are so very many of the needy, and so various their needs, how much time and effort (that my family needs to survive) am I supposed to devote to studying their needs and selecting whom I should help and by how much?"
   
   While Wieland discusses the views of virtue espoused by theists, by Aristotle, by Plato, and by Kant, he also gives only a weak and confusing (to me) exposition of how a naturalist should view virtue and why pursue it.
   
   In short, this book is a good critique of "value and virtue in a theistic universe" but only a weak and unhelpful display of the title subject.



4. The increased attention that the popular presses have given to atheist apologetics in recent years has allowed modern skeptics and non-believers to fill their shelves with entertaining, if sometimes imperious, arguments by such popular authors as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and now even Hitchins, to name just a few. This book offers entry into an under-explored, but important, question: assuming there is no God, is there a strong basis for an ethical, purposeful, and "meaningful" life?
   
   A few other Amazon reviewers have attended to this book's arguments quite thoughtfully, so I'll restrict my comments the style and presentation. The book tries to be at once both "academic" and "popular," reading not so much like lecture notes (as one reviewer characterized it) as like a Ph.D. dissertation that the author has attempted to revise for a wider audience. (I have no idea whether this is the actual origin of the book.) It is full of reference citations and quotations not only of earlier philosophers but even of occasional examples from popular culture. Readers who have had at least an introductory course in formal logic may appreciate the disciplined style of argument, but more "general" audiences may find this to be something of an obstacle. You certainly don't need a degree in philosophy to follow this author's lines of thought, and the serious lay reader will be rewarded by the time spent with this book, but it's probably the academic reader who will find this book's style most familiar and engaging.
   
   I hope that some future authors will take up this topic and bring it to a wider audience. It addresses an important objection often raised by theists who are defending the necessity of religion in civilized society. "How can you live a good life without God?" is a question that long-time atheists may find both curious and tiresome, but it still deserves a serious answer.



5. It's telling that an academic Cambridge UP book has received seven or eight (as of early 2008) reviews; most of the time, academic books get scanty attention at best, unless a colleague (or mom!) reviews them. This is particularly true of philosophy books. Anyhow, I'm not surprised this book has an appeal. Wielenberg is a graceful and incisive writer. He seems incapable of writing turgid or indecipherable sentences. He reasons lucidly, and lucidly places his faith in reason. I would think him to be an excellent teacher, good with examples and capable of focused argumentation, but without losing sight of the big picture. His examples range from Dostoevsky to Milton, the Bible to C. S. Lewis. Of course many philosophers make an appearance too, some ancient (e.g., Aristotle) and some contemporary (e.g., Graham). And he's read neuroscientists (Damasio) too. General readers interested in big questions -- like: the naturalization of ethics, the role of faith in life, the necessity (or not as the case may be) of a higher being for the flourishing of human agents -- will find a lot to chew on. And all this in a 160 page book to boot. (NB: it is not the case that the author simply gives us some syllogisms. On the contrary, while there are some, they are embedded in as smart and clear a text as one could want.)

5 comments about The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths.

1. Being a former atheist, and finding Dawkins' arguments so flimsy, I was thinking of writing my own critique of Dawkins' book. But now, having read this, I find it is not necessary after all! Thank you, David!
   
   This book consists of the author's own letters which were posted on the Dawkins website. The author replies to Dawkins' 'God Delusion' chapter-by-chapter and has a knack of getting to the nub of the issue each time. Easily the best critique of Dawkins' ideas in book form currently available.
   
   Borders bookstores have reported that 'The Dawkins Letters' is now outselling Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' throughout their stores in the UK. This book deserves it!



2. David Robertson, a Free Church of Scotland pastor who lives in Dundee, wanted there to be an intelligent Christian response to Richard Dawkins' bestselling The God Delusion. To that end he wrote an open letter to Richard Dawkins and subsequently posted it on his church's web site. The letter somehow found its way to Dawkins who posted it on his own website where it generated a response that was massive in scope and in passion. According to the back of The Dawkins Letters, "The ferocity, and shallowness of thinking, of some of the responses spurred David to write further letters, which form the basis of this book. They explain a credible basis for faith that counteracts the `atheist myths' that so much popular discussion is based upon."
   
   The Dawkins Letters, then, is a series of letters from Robertson to Dawkins--a series of ten letters that call Dawkins to account for the errors and inaccuracies within his book. It also responds to his arguments--both his novel new ones and the tired rehashed ones common to a whole generation of atheists. Generally speaking, Robertson does a superior job of doing this. He says in his Introduction that he will no doubt be criticized by some for being too harsh and by others for being too gentle; some will say that this is an in appropriate forum for attempts at humor and others will simply miss the humor altogether. But, says Robertson, "It will be helpful to remember that these are personal letters, not an academic discourse, not an exercise in English grammar." In order to make this a personal rebuttal and in order to reach a wide audience, he has decided not to make this an academic treatise, though I'm sure he would have been capable of doing so.
   
   The book does a particularly good job of point out the unending contradictions between what Dawkins wants to believe and what he must actually believe on the basis of his atheistic beliefs. After all, most atheists stop far short of following their beliefs to fair conclusions. Robertson calls them on this time and time again.
   
   I had very few notable concerns with the book. Robertson perhaps cedes a little too much to theistic evolution, intelligent design, or old earth creationism. He does not state his position on the age of the earth and the way life came about, but neither does he deny the validity of any of the possibilities. I was a little disappointed in this. But beyond that I found little that I objected to. I thought he did as good a job of anyone of interacting with atheistic arguments and of challenging atheists to understand the contradictions inherent in their worldview. Anyone who has read The God Delusion would do well to follow it with this intelligent, measured, respectful response.



3. While David Robertson does score a few hits on Dawkins by raising some valid criticisms of "The God Delusion" these are heavily out numbered by the misses.
   Roberston's arguments often do not address the point he feels he is attacking and others are just not convincing.
   When Robertson attacks Dawkins description of the Old testiment God as cruel and vicious which Dawkins bases on such things as the biblical flood etc Robertson quoates a bit of the old testement which basically says God is a realy nice chap. Since both are using the old testiment as their source the obvious conclusion is that God is a realy nice chap who destroyed all human and animal life on Earth apart from one family and their pets.
   When Robertson gets on to the subject of morality he uses the type of argument all too frequently trotted out in Christian literature, the argument from consequences. He argues that without God there can be no absolute morality and any form of relative morality will allow anyone to justify any action however bad and thus lead to the type of terrible attrocites that litter the history of the 20th centuary. Since this is unattractive consequence of relative morality there must be an absolute morality therefore God must exist. This type of argument boils down to if A is true then B will happen, I don't want B to happen so A must be false.
   Someone could argue that if they were poor they could not buy the things they want, could not go on nice holidays and could not eat at the restaurants they like, this would be unpleasent for them therefore they must be rich but I suspect their bank manager would not be impressed.



4. What a cynical attempt to cash in on the atheist movement by publishing a series of disingenuous rants that were posted on some christian bozo's web site.
   
   This guy's postings are available online for free (so no need to spend the money to buy his stupid book.).
   
   They consist of incoherent ramblings that never actually address the thesis of Richard Dawkins's book: That the idea that there is some supernatural jewish grandfather living in the sky is a load of bunk. (Actually Dawkins addresses all kinds of mythological grandfathers, not just jewish ones as in judeo-christo-islamism.



5. Richard Dawkins published a book entitled The God Delusion which articulated his brand of atheism. In light of the buzz surrounding the book, a pastor in Scotland wanted to equip his church to think about the book and the faith of Christianity. So he wrote an open letter to Dawkins and posted it on the church's website. Soon after this, the letter was published on Dawkins' own website, where it generated a substantial response from the congregation of atheists.
   
   There remained a tone of anger bathed in shallowness resulting in inconsistencies and unfair characterizations of Christianity. So Pastor David Robertson wrote more letters to Dawkins. These letters form the basis for The Dawkins Letters.
   
   Robertson interacts with each of the chapters in Dawkins' book. He aims to do so with clarity, kindness, and biblical fidelity. I believe he has done so.
   
   In each of the chapters Robertson inserts the word "myth" before the various chapter titles that Dawkins employed. He then sets out to refute Dawkins biblically. Robertson tries to fly under the radar, claiming that he is no scientist or scholar, just a pastor, however, at the same time he is no dummy. He interacts with Dawkins, shows inconsistencies, and most importantly, provides an answer. His tone is humble and in some cases very evangelistic. In my view Robertson did his job and as a result this little book (140 pages) will help you wade through the issues and interact biblically.

5 comments about The Atheists Are Revolting!.

1. A light hearted yet passionate look at one of the most controverial and important issues of our time. The book is a nice easy read that is great if you have watched his youtube video series. Not the most well written book in the world, at times it feels a little disjointed and one topic does not lead well to another, but the authors passionate no holds bared and often shocking aproach to the subject is a refreshing change in a world of political correctness with a topic usually only approached by intellectuals and schollars.



2. I dont usually go for writing reviews of my purchases but this one will be the exception. I only recently started watching Mr. Gisburne on Youtube and have loved every second of it. When I found out he had written a book it only took a matter of minutes for me to track it down and buy.
   
   Its a great read and I honestly feel happy to have found an author that isnt 'talking down' to me. His attitude throughout the book is one of a very real perspective that I feel daily and havent hesitated recommending to other like minded friends.



3. Many of us fondly remember Nick Gisbourne from his quirky clips on YouTube. I've spent many a night chuckling and whole heartly agreeing with Nick about religion and the damage that it is doing in today's world (at the time of his YouTube posts, the Bush-Blair team seemed to desire leading the world into a nuclear Crusade without any regard towards the innocents who wanted no part of their struggle). If you liked Nick's clips, you'll love his book. He goes more indepth into his view of religion, his own personal history, and is simply delightful, witty, and extraordinarily clever. This is a fantastic book! It's not as cerebral as Dawkins or as intellectually stimulating as Hitchens, but it makes for a wonderful and engaging intro into the modern atheist movement.



4. Nick Gisburne's delivery is quite different from Richard Dawkins's, Sam Harris's, Christopher Hitchens's, or Dan Dennett's, as he himself states. However, within this light-hearted manifesto of his atheism and critique of Christianity Mr. Gisburne gives a fine summary of what (most) atheists believe and don't believe and much ammunition for any atheist who might become involved in "discussions" with believers. His style is no-holds-barred, as you may expect from his YouTube videos. He's not afraid to call down BS on BS, but he is not gratuitously profane or vulgar.
   
   He makes a few points really well, perhaps better than I've seen anywhere else. In particular, I liked his dissection of the teachings of Christianity (original sin, forgiveness of sins, definition of sin, atonement by Christ, heaven, and especially hell), his discussion of natural law versus scientific theory, and his review of the arguments used by Christians for their God and their dogma. Great stuff.
   
   I found this book to be superbly readable. I think most of the chapters were originally written for his YouTube videos and, since they were written to be read aloud, they flow effortlessly. I enjoyed Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens very much; but this book is a really fun read. It's a real page-turner (at least for an atheist.) Mr. Gisburne's sense of humor shows throughout. I plan to pass this along to several people. For those who don't care to read more serious works like The God Delusion or Breaking the Spell, this is a great alternative. Not that he doesn't cover serious issues, he does and well; but it's done in a more entertaining and light-hearted way.
   
   One epigram of black humor from this book that I keep repeating: "Build a fire for a man and keep him warm for a night. Set a man on fire and keep him warm for the rest of his life." My 16-year-old also loved the title! He's reading the book now.



5. This is a waste of money I bought this book looking for some good hard facts instead what I found is a person trying to be funny and has no real sense of direction. What a waste of time and money.

2 comments about Drama of Atheist Humanism.

1. This is the book that first got me interested in religion. It is an outstanding discussion of Comte, Marx & Nietzsche. After reading this, the reader may want to read Kung's Does God Exist? and Baum's Doctors of Modernity: Darwin, Marx & Freud.



2. This book is very well written as well as very well documented. Those who read this book should be somewhat read in the works of Kierkegaard, Marx, Comte, and most importantly Nietsche and Dostoyevsky.

5 comments about Christianity Before Christ.

1. This book answers one of the most important theological manipulation ever invented by western culture. This book tells the truth that most so called christians can't dismiss nor understand.

   The TRUTH!




2. Mr. Jackson is a well-educated man. I find his book to be strikingly on point and backed by credible evidence. Yet, some people "Arthur" tend to deny anything that has its roots seeded deeply into the Egyptian Religion. I must state that to understand the Egyptian Religion you must learn that: "The Egyptian Religion was a pure Monotheism manifested externally by symbolic Polytheism". The Bible even contains this understanding when Jesus says in Psalm 82 verse 6: "I have said,Ye (you) are gods, and all of you are children of the most high".This is a direct quote. So, according to the bible the manifestation is with us.



3. Apparentlly Louis didnt understand this book. Christianity is the result of greeks and Romans making there own belief system by modifying the Black Egyptian concepts, indeed the Greeks and Romans were pagan being that they distorted a system that was already complete to its followers. So, it is anyones opinion of who is a pagan or not, christianity has no more validation of being the truth than ppl who worship a frog as a god. Indeed, Louis, there was a established uncorrupted religion before the christendom, it is exactly what this author speaks of, duh! so since the whole christian doctrine, (concepts and events) comes from Egytian doctrine and history you figure out who is the teacher and the student. (pun intended) Just as Mr. Jackson showed and proved, there were civilized ppl before a so called jesus christ, and just as Anubis said, Egyptians taught that existence came from a Monotheistic source but you could not know this source by any other means but its neter(made visible Truth), meaning its actions of manifesting, which is why all human beings are gods because they are the manifested neter or neteru along with all other visible things that are experienced relatively. It would help most who critique ones work if they leave their bias opinion and emotions to the side to view a different point of view which is equipted with more facts than faith or fear of a sovereign god. For the record what is called god is not a thing but subjective consciousness only what is created can be a thing because a thing is what is objectified (created), for, no one can see consciousness, you know you are because of awareness of beiing, which is consciousness, therefore, should not be viewed as something that is known to a seperate entity indeed this way of viewing existence is self defeating and laughable at best. The whole view of consciousness in the brain is no different than a human in a space suit to experience a different reality without air, and yet humans know that they exist prior and beyond the space suit and so the same is known for the conscious and brain connection, indeed, consciousness and conscious experience are not the same reality, one created and controls the development of the other, this is why Egyptians taught that everyone is god. What are you made of?, dirt, blood, water, neuron pulses, blah blah blah, these ingredient are created things which come from god so therefore are all space particles are god just as humans are. Without intentionality there can be no experiences, all worlds and beliefs comes from consciousness( all encompassing GOD), which cannot come from anything, in order for things to be created there has to already exist an intelligent source but I wouldnt call this the christian god since that concept for most is distorted and incomplete and defames the Egyptian concepts and perception of Maat which taught that all things come from the same source including human beings. When humans speak of a god they are speaking about a subject which is the (thing) but not the actual experience of (what is) through perception rather than ignorant concecption.



4. The reason why so many so-called pagans have similar stories about a Egyptian base story is because influence travels fast. This was definitely the result of certain African groups who were part of the Egyptian-Nubian expansions, preferably the Dravidians, (A Nubian Group) who settled in India, Asia, and the middle east, that was later occupied by Asians and Indo-Euro's who gradually invaded the settled places of the Dravidians for different reasons. Through out African history, Africans, especially the Egyptian-Nubians allowed Euro-Asians and Indo-Euro's to study in Egypt, as did the Dravidian-Nubians. At later times the Asiatic-Euro-Indo's grew in large numbers and turned into conquerers as this was a more suitable means for pastoral expansion via the constant migration of nomadic counterparts who decided to become farmers and needed the land of the Dravidians, and, for other reasons, such as racist segregation, which existed in India way before it did in Europe. Truthfully people will adopt other people's ideas be it for assimilation reasons to survive under some larger groups onesided views or because new concepts can have a socio-political promise to strengthen ones society through the order of a influentual neighbor. It is not hard to trace Taoism back to Egypt and Africa as a whole, just as it is not hard to see the story of Zoroastrianism being the result of the Persian conquest of Egypt which went back and forth in who was victorious and who influenced who. Just as it is not hard to see that the whole story of christ through out antiquity was the result of influence, not a prophetic phenomenon that took place in isolation with different societies. At any given time it has been evident of different societies to syncretize someone elses beliefs and practices with there own, so, what Mr. Jackson presents should be of no alarm just as the view of everyone coming from a common ancestor from Africa, and not from a multi-human-evolution view, which there is no concrete evidence for. There are better books than this one that will give a clear picture of paganism-christianity from Egyptian philosophy. I recommend for any seeker, the work of "Muata Ashby" who does a better job of explainig how christianity came to be from antiquity to the modern day practices. buy "African Origins 1,2,3 and "The Mystical Journey From Jesus To Christ." all by Dr. Muata A. Ashby.



5. Many differences between Christianity and the religions that the author has studied are not mentioned in this book, and even further, some of the religious accounts that the author talks about are disputed.
   
   For example, take the Krishna-Christ comparison. Here, the author fails to note that Krishna was never worshipped alone; in fact, his female counterpart Radha is often worshipped with, and even before him. This is a huge difference in relation to Chist's story. In addition to this, the Krishna story that is used, including possible cruxifiction, is not widely accepted. The more widely known version is that Krishna died when an arrow pierced his foot, similarly to the later Greek legend of Achilles.
   
   This is just a small drop of a pool of other similar examples.
   In other words, read with reservation.

2 comments about The Atheist's Introduction to the New Testament: How the Bible Undermines the Basic Teachings of Christianity.

1. If you are looking for a reason not to believe in Jesus, then this is the book for you. It is basically an introduction to contradictions of the Bible, but focused on the New Testament and those Old Testament passages that relate to New Testament events. The Atheist's Introduction to the New Testament is an advance over other Bible contradiction books in two ways. Instead of just giving a laundry list, it groups related contradictions and shows how they undercut specific Christian doctrines. And second, it gives many tips for rebutting the arguments that Christians use to try to refute the contradictions. Most of the existing Bible contradiction books are pretty old, and it's nice to see one come along that freshens up the topic a bit. Also, it's an easy read - the writing flows well and the tone is not as cranky as some antireligious works. A nice added feature is that it compares various translations of the Bible and shows how contradictions can be covered up by inaccurate translations. Also, there's a whole chapter debunking the Old Testament prophecies that supposedly predict the coming of Jesus. An example of how this book differs from say, Dennis McKinsey's "Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy," is the contradiction between Acts 9:7 and 22:9, where Paul's traveling companions heard the voice from the sky (9:7) and did not hear the voice (22:9). Both books mention this contradiction, but McKinsey is content to just cite it and move on, while Davis goes into the ways in which Christians try to refute it, and then shows why those refutations are not valid. So McKinsey's book is broader, but The Atheist's Introduction to the New Testament is more focused and goes into more depth on the contradictions relating to Christianity. Given the price difference, I would suggest if you are looking for a basic introduction to contradictions of the Bible that you start with the Atheist's Introduction to the New Testament, and then when you are ready to broaden your scope, add McKinsey's Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy to your library.



2. I really learned a lot from this book. I didn't grow up in a religious household, and never took Christianity or any other religion very seriously, but I often thought I should really get around to reading the Bible to find out for sure whether there was anything to it. Thanks to The Atheist's Introduction to the New Testament - I don't need to. It really gives you all the info you need to dismiss the Christian myths and then move on to whatever else you have to do in your life. No need to waste time worrying about whether you're going to hell for speaking against the holy ghost or some other nonsense. If you like debating against the Christian fundamentalists, this book will give you plenty of ammo to use against them, but if you're just a non-religious person who's trying to find out whether Christianity is worth a second look, you can save yourself a lot of time by just reading The Atheist's Introduction to the New Testa ment, and leave the Bible on the shelf.