Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, March 3, 2008 | Reason : Backlash | print version Print | Comments |

Document Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

by Publishers Weekly

Reposted from:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6536518.html

In Defense of God
Atheist bestsellers have spurred on protectors of the faith

by Lori Smith -- Publishers Weekly, 3/3/2008

In the current cultural argument over God and faith, one thing is beyond doubt: as long as there are atheist bestsellers, there will be response books, and lots of them. The string of popular titles by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett has spawned a batch of response books across the faith spectrum.

While previous titles (Alister McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion, InterVarsity, 2007) have responded to particular books, or, as in the case of Antony Flew (There Is a God, HarperOne, 2007), charted one person's spiritual journey, now authors are beginning to respond to the "new atheists" as a group or movement.

Philip Law, academic editor and U.K./E.U. publishing director for Westminster John Knox, sought out John Haught, professor of science and religion at Georgetown University, to write God and the New Atheism, published in December. "As far as I know," Law says, "there have not been any credible responses to all of these 'new atheists.'"

Part of this trend is a resurgence in titles defending the Christian faith—known in the category as apologetics—coming from both evangelical and other Christian publishers.

This year Ravi Zacharias, a well known apologist, offers The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists (Zondervan, May), addressing atheist arguments in a succinct 144 pages. Readers looking for more depth can turn to Zacharias's Beyond Opinion (Thomas Nelson, Jan.), which brought together members of his international team of apologists for what PW's review called "a relatively concise treatment of major apologetic themes."

Chuck Colson's new book, The Faith (Zondervan, Mar.), while not a direct response to atheist books, in some way grew out of the larger discussion about what Christianity is and why it matters. "It directly and indirectly answers the atheists, but it's bigger than just an immediate response," says Dudley Delffs, v-p and publisher of trade books for Zondervan. "It makes a direct and winsome case for the Christian faith, and we think it has the potential to endure as a contemporary classic."

Pastor Timothy Keller, whose Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan draws 5,000 people every week, spent years crafting his first book, The Reason for God (Dutton, Feb.)—in many ways a traditional apologetics book, but one that embraces doubt as a means of arriving at faith. David C. Cook plans to re-release Greg Boyd's bestselling Letters from a Skeptic in June; the title has sold over 250,000 copies since its initial publication in 1993.

Other Voices

But the breadth and intensity of the debate has created opportunities for varying approaches. The atheists write with what Matt Baugher, v-p and publisher for spiritual growth and Christian thought at Thomas Nelson, calls "venom," stridently stating that religious belief is delusional and dangerous and the world would be better off without it. Becky Garrison (InProfile, this issue), senior contributing editor for the smart Christian humor magazine the Wittenburg Door, offers a snarky, satiric response in The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail (Thomas Nelson, Jan.). Baugher said orders from mainstream retailers for Garrison's book have been double what they expected.

Blogger and political columnist Vox Day comes at the issues from a nontheological perspective in The Irrational Atheist (BenBella, Feb.), relying on factual evidence to counter atheist claims that religion causes war, that religious people are more apt to commit crime and that the Bible and other sacred texts are unreliable and fictitious. Journalist David Aikman examines atheism as a threat to American freedom in The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism Is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (Tyndale, Apr.).

Tina Beattie, v-p of the Catholic Theological Society of Great Britain, takes a broader approach in The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion (Orbis, Apr.), looking at the centuries-old conflict between science and faith and approaching religion with an appreciation for the "the realm of symbol, imagination, and creativity." Inclusive publisher O Books offers God Without God: Western Spirituality Without the Wrathful King (June) by former Church of England priest Michael Hampson, arguing that "the God the atheist denies is not the God that people of true faith affirm," according to the book's description.

All of these books aim to move the discussion in a less vitriolic direction, and none more so than Zondervan's A Friendly Dialogue Between an Atheist and a Christian (Feb.). The book charts conversations between evangelist Luis Palau and Chinese diplomat Zhao Qizheng and was a bestseller in China before Zondervan picked it up.

The Varieties of Atheism

But the atheist bestsellers are prompting responses from less conservative writers as well, criticizing their approach and reminding readers that atheists can be spiritual, too. André Comte-Sponville's The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality (Viking, Dec., 2007) argues that spirituality doesn't have to be tied to religion. PW's review said, "French philosopher Comte-Sponville makes a compelling argument for a profound dimension of experience that is god-free." Austin Dacey further explores this idea of "secular morality" in his The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life (Prometheus, Mar.), asserting that ethics can be based on reason rather than faith and calling "secular liberals to... defend their own moral vision in society."

Chris Hedges, a war correspondent and graduate of Harvard Divinity School, believes that evolution alone can't make us good—we need to believe in something. In I Don't Believe in Atheists (Free Press, Mar.), Hedges equates the new atheists to the fundamentalist believers they critique and suggests that they're just as dangerous. Dominick Anfuso, v-p and editorial director, says, "Hedges attacks the atheists as being as dogmatic, if not more so, than what they're criticizing. Based on his experience as a war correspondent, he takes on their worldview, the idea that we are capable of spiritual improvement. Hedges says we're clearly not progressing morally as a species."

Nick Harding's How to Be a Good Atheist (Oldcastle Books, Apr.) explains the five types of atheism and the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, and is being pitched to readers tired of hearing that "anyone devoid of faith is evil, immoral, and responsible for societal ills."

Then there are tangentially related books whose marketing campaigns are tying them to the "new atheist" discussions. Former New York Times religion reporter Gustav Niebuhr's Beyond Tolerance: Searching for Interfaith Understanding in America (Viking, July) looks at the history of religious freedom in America and focuses on the need for better communication and cooperation. Viking describes the book as "a bracing rejoinder both to religious fanaticism and to books decrying religion." HarperOne is releasing a revised edition of When Religion Becomes Evil (Feb.) by Mideast politics expert Charles Kimball. PW said, "Kimball's clear and steady voice provides a helpful guide for those trying to understand why evil is perpetrated in the name of religion."

Sometimes publishers find themselves on both sides of the debate. Hachette published Hitchens's God Is Not Great through its Twelve imprint, which led FaithWords, another Hachette house, to want to respond. Publisher Rolf Zettersten looked to Catholic priest Thomas Williams for Greater Than You Think: A Theologian Answers the Atheists About God (June), which provides brief two-and three-page answers to a series of questions. Says editor Holly Halverson, "We wanted more of a handbook that wouldn't scare people off."

And HarperOne, which publishes Bart Ehrman—whose bestselling Misquoting Jesus led to Nicholas Perrin's Lost in Transmission (Thomas Nelson, Jan.)—will release the first Jewish contribution to the debate in September with Rabbi David Wolpe's Why Faith Matters, a personal account of his own faith struggle along with a response to the new atheism. Publisher Mark Tauber says this is part of HarperOne's purpose: "We have always tried to publish books that fuel the conversation. It is essential that our publishing program continue to put out books by authors on all sides who offer intelligent and compelling approaches to the many divisive and defining issues of the time."

Publishers generally agree that apologetics publishing will persist, but the trend of huge sales in the category may be dying. Zondervan's Delffs believes "the market is always open to authentic, well-written apologetics titles." Baugher says, "Apologetics will always be around, but there will be more titles and higher sales as long as contrary titles continue to sell well." HarperOne's Tauber doesn't think there are "many more huge books left in the category." Says Anfuso at Free Press, "You have to examine these books much closer now, sales-wise, because there are so many. It's a topic that will continue, but it can't sustain these huge sales. It's not going to become perennial, like diet books." BenBella publisher Glenn Yeffeth believes that as the political climate changes, particularly if a more liberal presidential candidate is elected, the chorus will die down.

For now, expect more. In August, Jossey-Bass publishes social psychologist David Myers's Letter to a Secular Culture, described as "a well-reasoned case for the many benefits of faith." In September InterVarsity Press has Amy Orr-Ewing's Is Believing in God Irrational? And Bart Ehrman's March title from HarperOne—God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer—will no doubt add to the fervor.

Comments 1 - 50 of 95 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #137962 by maton100 on March 3, 2008 at 4:51 pm

 avatarApologetics are irksome. I'd like to see some apologetics for Chaac. C'mon fleas!

Other Comments by maton100

2. Comment #137967 by Gymnopedie on March 3, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Uh oh, this new book takes on the dreaded New Atheists in a way not done before! Maybe by addressing the actual arguments, avoiding logical fallacies, and presenting good arguments and evidence?

... probably not.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

3. Comment #137969 by Steve Zara on March 3, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Regarding "other voices"

I am currently researching and writing a review of Vox Day's book, which is certainly not "not theological" as claimed.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

4. Comment #137970 by Inferno on March 3, 2008 at 5:02 pm

 avatarAnyone else a little frightened of books promising "The End of Reason"? When did being reasonable become a horrible thing?

Other Comments by Inferno

5. Comment #137974 by Geoff on March 3, 2008 at 5:06 pm

 avatar

Philip Law, academic editor and U.K./E.U. publishing director for Westminster John Knox, sought out John Haught, professor of science and religion at Georgetown University, to write God and the New Atheism, published in December. "As far as I know," Law says, "there have not been any credible responses to all of these 'new atheists.'"


Well, he got that right.

Other Comments by Geoff

6. Comment #137975 by Diacanu on March 3, 2008 at 5:08 pm

 avatarGeez, these angry little bees really, really, really, really, REALLY don't want their little con racket messed with do they?

Other Comments by Diacanu

7. Comment #137977 by Diacanu on March 3, 2008 at 5:14 pm

 avatar

Letter to a Secular Culture, described as "a well-reasoned case for the many benefits of faith."


I don't suppose believing in something that isn't a delusion will turn out to be one of those benefits.

Unless there's proof of God in there, I don't give a shit.

I don't care if belief in Santa cures hemorrhoids, I fucking refuse to fucking believe in fucking Santa.

Other Comments by Diacanu

8. Comment #137978 by HourglassMemory on March 3, 2008 at 5:15 pm

My God! These are Trekies who mean business!

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

9. Comment #137984 by Cartomancer on March 3, 2008 at 5:43 pm

 avatarBlimey, not since the heady twelfth-century days of Petrus Alfonsi's Dialogue between a Christian a Jew and a Philosopher and Robert of Ketton's Latin Koran for the purpose of refuting the Muslims have we had so many frightened religious people desperate to pretend there is a credible case for their beliefs.

Funny how we only need one or two books to refute religiosity but they need to keep churning the fleas out ad nauseam. I guess that's because, while things like The God Delusion, God is not Great, and even the works of Bertrand Russell make the case in an explicitly confrontational way, pretty much every good book ever published on science, philosophy, history, morality and any other credible academic subject makes the case eloquently too in its own way. Likewise, all works of fiction weigh in as refutations of religion by showing up how much it has in common with them. Even religious books, and even the flea books, have something to contribute - by explicitly showing us how pathetic the case for the defence is and what lengths these mind viruses will make people go to to defend their pathology.

So read a book, ANY book, and you've got a part of the case against religion in your hands already! The only way you can avoid it is to cease reading any more books at all!

Other Comments by Cartomancer

10. Comment #137985 by Dr Benway on March 3, 2008 at 5:45 pm

 avatarQ: How is a publisher like a divorce lawyer?
Hachette published Hitchens's God Is Not Great through its Twelve imprint, which led FaithWords, another Hachette house, to want to respond.
Conflict pays, baby.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

11. Comment #137986 by SPS on March 3, 2008 at 5:46 pm

Steve,
I can't wait to read your review.

I think there's something to be said for atheist spirituality of the non-fairytale variety, involving introspection, honest communication, and a positive attitude towards possibilities minus the dogma.

Other Comments by SPS

12. Comment #137990 by robert s on March 3, 2008 at 5:56 pm

How to Be a Good Atheist explains the five types of atheism

I'm guessing type 1 is the type that doesn't believe in any gods.

Anyone know what the other 4 are?

Other Comments by robert s

13. Comment #137993 by Goldy on March 3, 2008 at 6:03 pm

 avatarHenry VIII was an early flea :-) He did it for...hmmm, why did he do it? Anyway, didn;t help him much - the pope wouldn't let him divorce and look how all that ended up!
Defend faith all you like, fleas. It doesn't always thank you in ways you'd wish.

Other Comments by Goldy

14. Comment #138002 by Gymnopedie on March 3, 2008 at 6:14 pm

I think a huge part of the faith crowd simply sees faith as an integral part of a healthy life and see an attack on faith at best mean-spirited and at worst a dangerous subversion of society. The next wave of arguments should shift to the benefits of persisting in reality based thinking instead of delusion, regardless of the so-called benefits of faith.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

15. Comment #138008 by NormanDoering on March 3, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Steve Zara wrote:
I am currently researching and writing a review of Vox Day's book, ...


Please drop a link onto the comments section of my blog post about Vox Day here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/just-one-more-of-vox-days-lies-andor.html

I haven't yet seen a good atheist review of Day's book.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

16. Comment #138010 by LorienRyan on March 3, 2008 at 6:31 pm

 avatarWe've heard all the ad hominems and seen the burning of the straw men by the fleas, is it too much to ask for some evidence?

It seems 'quantity not quality' is the motto for fleadom.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

17. Comment #138020 by Diacanu on March 3, 2008 at 6:41 pm

 avatarLorienRyan-

(Gym teacher from Simpsons)

Bombardment!! Bombardment!! Bombardment!!

Other Comments by Diacanu

18. Comment #138025 by Diacanu on March 3, 2008 at 6:52 pm

 avatarBrian English-


That's it in a nutshell. It doesn't matter how it makes you feel. Is it true is what matters.


There's more evidence to believe in flying saucers than there is for God.

And yet, people who believe in flying saucers are snarkily called "buffs".

What moved christians from a small pitiful band of Jesus buffs, to having their crap indulged by society?

Sure as hell wasn't proof of their God.

Oh, that's right, it was Constantine, the council of Nicea, and the bullying of the catholic church for the next few centuries.

Nah, fuck it, christians, you're Jesus buffs.

Your conversion stories impress me as much as Bubbah's alleged anal probing.

Other Comments by Diacanu

19. Comment #138026 by jonjermey on March 3, 2008 at 6:52 pm

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win. I'd say we're entering Phase 3 now...

Other Comments by jonjermey

20. Comment #138028 by Quine on March 3, 2008 at 6:53 pm

 avatar
... there will be response books, and lots of them.


Fine. We will feed them to our rottweiler. She is just getting up to speed, and once she gets a good agent, will be set for the foreseeable future.

Other Comments by Quine

21. Comment #138041 by pkruger on March 3, 2008 at 7:50 pm

The only thing the flea authors are worried about is the potential millions of dollars believers will no longer dish out blindly to their local church/evangelist after they become non-believers.

Other Comments by pkruger

22. Comment #138047 by notsobad on March 3, 2008 at 8:01 pm

 avatarThe insecurity rises...

Blogger and political columnist Vox Day comes at the issues from a nontheological perspective in The Irrational Atheist (BenBella, Feb.), relying on factual evidence to counter atheist claims ... that the Bible and other sacred texts are unreliable and fictitious.

The Bible and other texts? It must be busy on Mount Olympus.

Other Comments by notsobad

23. Comment #138051 by OverUsedChewToy on March 3, 2008 at 8:18 pm

 avatarA theist wrote a book called "The End of Reason". Well, at least he's honest about its contents- no misleading titles here :D

Other Comments by OverUsedChewToy

24. Comment #138056 by WhoDatNinja on March 3, 2008 at 8:33 pm

So read a book, ANY book, and you've got a part of the case against religion in your hands already! The only way you can avoid it is to cease reading any more books at all!


Many children in Islamic countries have access to only one book; the Qur'an. This actually surprised me when Ayaan Hirsi Ali mentioned it in a video posted here a couple of days ago, though in hindsight I suppose it shouldn't have.

On a separate note, I'd be interested to know what percentage of the books sold by someone like McGrath are purchased by atheists like ourselves. I'd be willing to bet the number is quite high.

Other Comments by WhoDatNinja

25. Comment #138069 by dkv on March 3, 2008 at 8:51 pm

 avatarThe needless debate is going to kill the reason of science... In many cases the rationalist apply the principle of "I dont know" but in the case of God.. they aggressively pull the defenceless God.
Blasphemy challenge... the root of all evil etc have ruined the successful attempt at evolution.

Other Comments by dkv

26. Comment #138074 by MaxD on March 3, 2008 at 9:09 pm

 avatarI laughed out loud when I read this title....
The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism Is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness


I mean how did they find out our game plan? I thought we agreed at the meetings to keep that secret? I could have sworn at the meeting Richard, Hitch, Harris and Dennett all told us that it was to be kept under wraps until we had unveild the new black uniforms. We all clapped three times turned in circle, ate some bacon and beef and pissed on a cross to seal the deal?
Was I just dreaming?

Other Comments by MaxD

27. Comment #138099 by Teratornis on March 3, 2008 at 11:37 pm

 avatar

Publishers generally agree that apologetics publishing will persist, but the trend of huge sales in the category may be dying. Zondervan's Delffs believes "the market is always open to authentic, well-written apologetics titles." Baugher says, "Apologetics will always be around, but there will be more titles and higher sales as long as contrary titles continue to sell well." HarperOne's Tauber doesn't think there are "many more huge books left in the category." Says Anfuso at Free Press, "You have to examine these books much closer now, sales-wise, because there are so many. It's a topic that will continue, but it can't sustain these huge sales. It's not going to become perennial, like diet books." BenBella publisher Glenn Yeffeth believes that as the political climate changes, particularly if a more liberal presidential candidate is elected, the chorus will die down.


Perhaps the futility of apologetics is proportional to the number of titles. Consider: if it were possible to make a rational case for believing in things without evidence, only one apologetics book would be necessary. The fact that so many are cropping up suggests that Christians understand none of the titles on offer suffice to vanquish doubt.

It's encouraging to see the new atheists have managed to change the priorities for theists. The more resources theists have to divert to talking themselves into continuing to believe what they claim they believed all along, the fewer resources they will have to bomb abortion clinics and organize against stem cell research.

I can't resist drawing a very crude analogy with the way al-Qaeda managed to completely change the priorities of the U.S. government. Obviously the analogy fails early and often, but even if the neocons manage to hunt down and kill every last al-Qaeda recruit, al-Qaeda will still have been a success if its goal was to goad the U.S. into wasting several trillion dollars.

Other Comments by Teratornis

28. Comment #138112 by Diacanu on March 4, 2008 at 12:36 am

 avatarThank goodness for the internet.

Back in the old days, the newspapers would publish some drivel from an apologist, the atheist response couldn't even get a look in, and that'd be that.

People would swallow the apologetic hoo-hah, everything back to crappy normal, the end.

But look how much info we have at our fingertips.

Look how many of us are just normal shlubs, and in a short span, we've mastered atheist debate ju-jitsu as well as some pros.

The genie's out of the bottle.
One has to studiously go out of their way to be one of the duped masses at this point.

Other Comments by Diacanu

29. Comment #138114 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 12:44 am

 avatarDiacanu,

Was just reading some comments along the same lines on another thread and I wholeheartedly agree. This site really is a great resource. An oasis of reason.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

30. Comment #138115 by JemyM on March 4, 2008 at 12:44 am

 avatarBecause God surely needs a human bodyguard who defend him against other humans.

Other Comments by JemyM

31. Comment #138132 by Justanotheratheist on March 4, 2008 at 1:24 am

 avatarI have to agree with Diacanu's view that the internet has done a great deal to strip away the bullshit of belief. I had never thought of it in those terms before, but no other invention has allowed the free exchange of ideas on such a scale as the WWW.

Clearly, it must be Satan's handiwork.

Getting back on point (sort of), isn't it amazing how many times we have to be bombarded with essentially the same lame bullshit by the theist brigade. One atheist book requires at least a dozen in refutation, with not one offering one shred of anything remotely new.

Maybe flea authors are in competition to find how many different ways they can conjure up of saying exactly the same f***ing thing. To kill perfectly harmless trees to make these rubbish books should be a crime.

Other Comments by Justanotheratheist

32. Comment #138133 by PJG on March 4, 2008 at 1:28 am

 avatarIn not more than your own words, write a condensed version of all the flea books (marks will be deducted for any pretence that any of them contain evidence):

"There is a God because I say so and people who don't agree are horrid. So there!"

Other Comments by PJG

33. Comment #138137 by robotaholic on March 4, 2008 at 1:36 am

 avatarFine! believe in spirituality if you must, but don't call atheism dogmatic - there are no texts to be dogmatic about and clearly the "new atheists" never said you shouldn't believe in "nothing"- comeone - you idiotic writers - if you take the "adam and eve" story literaly then you discredit yourselves in the face of evolution - if you take it allegorically then jesus died to redeem allegorical sins- the whole idea of it is preposterous!- you have NO BASIS

Oh and there is no response to be had - I don't believe in invisible people with superpowers - you cannot write a book to convince me to do so-

The Flea market is CLOSED.

Oh and if "god" needs defending - "it" can do it itself.

Other Comments by robotaholic

34. Comment #138140 by Wosret on March 4, 2008 at 1:38 am

 avatarWhat's wrong with these people? How do they sell books with those titles? Who is giving these reviews? Why should I care what they think?

Why are these people not mocked and ridiculed like the comspiricy theorists that they are? Well, I guess if David Icke can sell books, they likely can. Though I somehow think his books would be better. More funny, and not piss you off.

Other Comments by Wosret

35. Comment #138141 by robotaholic on March 4, 2008 at 1:43 am

 avatarI'm fed up with fleas. Time to deny their credibility from the start.

I mean - they need to make their OWN money.

Thank goodness:
HarperOne's Tauber doesn't think there are "many more huge books left in the category." -

Other Comments by robotaholic

36. Comment #138142 by clodhopper on March 4, 2008 at 1:46 am

 avatarChuck Colson's new book, The Faith (Zondervan, Mar.), snip....."It directly and indirectly answers the atheists, but it's bigger than just an immediate response, It makes a direct and winsome case for the Christian faith, and we think it has the potential to endure as a contemporary classic."

Would that be 'winsome' as in 'sweetly or innocently charming'?

Other Comments by clodhopper

37. Comment #138149 by irate_atheist on March 4, 2008 at 2:00 am

 avatarIf I ever run out of bog rolls, I'll grab a copy from the local library.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

38. Comment #138155 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 2:15 am

 avatar
Chris Hedges, a war correspondent and graduate of Harvard Divinity School, believes that evolution alone can't make us goodâ€"we need to believe in something. In I Don't Believe in Atheists (Free Press, Mar.), Hedges equates the new atheists to the fundamentalist believers they critique and suggests that they're just as dangerous. Dominick Anfuso, v-p and editorial director, says, "Hedges attacks the atheists as being as dogmatic, if not more so, than what they're criticizing. Based on his experience as a war correspondent, he takes on their worldview, the idea that we are capable of spiritual improvement. Hedges says we're clearly not progressing morally as a species."

Is this the same Chris Hedges who posted here on the leprechology thread, and was told by revcort that he was on the slippery slope to a worse hell than mere atheists?

Funny, I don't remember him arguing that here.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

39. Comment #138158 by Corylus on March 4, 2008 at 2:28 am

 avatarHungarianelephant

Is this the same Chris Hedges who posted here on the leprechology thread, and was told by revcort that he was on the slippery slope to a worse hell than mere atheists?

No, that was Chris Heard, who is a biblical scholar (expert in hebrew). Seemed a lovely guy.

Other Comments by Corylus

40. Comment #138159 by Steve Zara on March 4, 2008 at 2:30 am

Comment #138047 by notsobad

The insecurity rises...

Blogger and political columnist Vox Day comes at the issues from a nontheological perspective in The Irrational Atheist (BenBella, Feb.), relying on factual evidence to counter atheist claims ...



A better description would be

"to counter what he thinks are atheist claims"

He rarely deals directly with any claims that have been made with Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and others

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #138160 by Nefrubyr on March 4, 2008 at 2:30 am

 avatar
Inclusive publisher O Books offers God Without God: Western Spirituality Without the Wrathful King (June) by former Church of England priest Michael Hampson, arguing that "the God the atheist denies is not the God that people of true faith affirm," according to the book's description.

Note to all Christian apologists everywhere: atheism is not a cult set up to deny your god. There is no "God the atheist denies". We deny all gods. We deny the gods we make up, the god you make up, the gods the Hindus make up, the gods the pagans make up, the gods the Greeks and Romans made up and the gods that a cult that won't start for another hundred years will make up. They're all made up, we recognise this obvious fact, and that is why we're called "atheists". There's no point trying to define your way out of it with wordplay, warm fuzzies and true Scotsmen.

Other Comments by Nefrubyr

42. Comment #138162 by irate_atheist on March 4, 2008 at 2:37 am

 avatar43. Comment #138160 by Nefrubyr -

I don't deny the gods I've made up - they're real, and I didn't make them up.

Oh, sorry, trying to see it from their side again...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

43. Comment #138165 by Clapton_is_God on March 4, 2008 at 2:43 am

 avatarDespite desperate attempts in these books to clothe the Emperor, he is still stark bollock naked.

Other Comments by Clapton_is_God

44. Comment #138167 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 2:51 am

 avatarCorylus - You are quite right as usual, and I am quite wrong. Chris Heard it was. Now that was the sort of theist I could relate to. Thanks.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

45. Comment #138172 by Steve Zara on March 4, 2008 at 3:01 am

Comment #138160 by Nefrubyr

We deny all gods.


I wonder if you see yourself as an anti-theist as well as a-theist :)

I guess it depends on your definition of god, but I am not sure one can deny gods you haven't heard about yet. I think even Richard Dawkins might believe in a god given enough actual evidence, especially if that god was the result of some evolutionary process.

My view is that I am an atheist because when there is so little evidence (if you can even call it that), there has to be a time when being agnostic about gods you have heard of is no longer sensible.

If you don't mind me asking, what do you think? How do you define "god"?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

46. Comment #138173 by Logicel on March 4, 2008 at 3:04 am

 avatarclodhopper wrote: Would that be 'winsome' as in 'sweetly or innocently charming'?
______

No, it is winsome as in the crucifixes hanging on the walls of Christian homes and churches, with their man-god in great, bleeding pain just so their mythical 'sin' will be washed away in his blood sacrifice. Winsome as in death cult, winsome as in embracing nonsense, winsome as in total waste of human creativity, ability, and time. With winsome like that, we need some unwholesomeness in buckets, please.

Other Comments by Logicel

47. Comment #138178 by PJG on March 4, 2008 at 3:16 am

 avatarI think that in order to be a God, as opposed to a being (alien) that had evolved, it would have to have supernatural powers which were true magic - not just a technology or similar that we would interpret as magic because it was beyond our comprehension.

If that is the case, I would have to say that I don't believe in any gods that I haven't heard of either - so I am with Nefrubyr on this one. I live without god (any god). I think that makes me an atheist, not an anti-theist (though I am bordering on that too!)

Other Comments by PJG

48. Comment #138181 by AshtonBlack on March 4, 2008 at 3:19 am

 avatarPJG
In not more than your own words, write a condensed version of all the flea books (marks will be deducted for any pretence that any of them contain evidence):

"There is a God because I say so and people who don't agree are horrid. So there!"


"Goddidit!!! :p "

I've managed to keep me tea down whilst reading a couple of the fleas and boy oh boy..... There have been better arguments posted on the forums here, all refuted perfectly, but better none the less.

I've now run out of patience a little.

To Steve Z.: You of course are perfectly correct, to deny ALL gods does not leave room for smallest of small chances that some evidence will come along one day.

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

49. Comment #138183 by Corylus on March 4, 2008 at 3:22 am

 avatarOK, after reading a few of these books I am going to suggest an alternative strategy for dealing with them. We cannot just say that they are rubbish. (What I personally can say is that I have read several and thus far they have all been rubbish...)

The interesting thing is that, while that are common themes (i.e. fundamentalist atheists, accusations of rudeness and venom when only honesty exists) there are significant stylistic differences between the authors. I also suspect that there are different motivations for writing them.

As a group of books they demonstrate the subjective (and thus contradictory) notions of God that people have. I am beginning to wonder whether these authors will have an effect that they have not anticipated. I suspect that if any theist reads three of more of these books, the inherent contradictions might just begin to niggle.

Maybe we should not be saying:

Do not read these books; they are no good

but instead,

Yes, do please read these books; as many as you can*. See how long you last. Tell us which one you agreed with completely.How do you feel after reading them? Vindicated? Reassured? Or slightly worried about a few points and maybe strangely depressed? Now read one of the atheist books again; do you think the points made have been addressed; or merely glossed over?

*(Do get them from the library or borrow them though; nothing more annoying than realising that you have put your hard earned dosh in the pockets of a dreadful author).

A thought.

------

The people I feel sorriest for are the new atheists and their staff who I suspect have to read these books in order to check for libel (I have read a few statements in those that I have read that have made me wonder if a writ might be at the end of this road).
Now that cannot be a fun job.

---

No biggie Hungarian :-)

Other Comments by Corylus

50. Comment #138184 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 3:25 am

 avatar
In not more than your own words, write a condensed version of all the flea books (marks will be deducted for any pretence that any of them contain evidence)


"God just exists, alright, He just does. Now don't hurt my feelings."

Other Comments by LorienRyan
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: