Wednesday, January 9, 2008 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

by John Allen Paulos

UPDATE: (thanks to Ken Bromberg)
First chapter: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/books/chapters/1st-chapter-irreligion.html?scp=1&sq=paulos

Review from NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/books/review/Holt-t.html?scp=2&sq=paulos

This little book just arrived on December 26th, and I must have missed it in the Christmas shuffle.

See:
http://www.amazon.com/Irreligion-Mathematician-Explains-Arguments-Just/dp/0809059193/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199912875&sr=8-1

A Lifelong Unbeliever Finds No Reason to Change His Mind

Are there any logical reasons to believe in God? Mathematician and bestselling author John Allen Paulos thinks not. In Irreligion he presents the case for his own worldview, organizing his book into twelve chapters that refute the twelve arguments most often put forward for believing in God's existence. The latter arguments, Paulos relates in his characteristically lighthearted style, "range from what might be called golden oldies to those with a more contemporary beat. On the playlist are the firstcause argument, the argument from design, the ontological argument, arguments from faith and biblical codes, the argument from the anthropic principle, the moral universality argument, and others." Interspersed among his twelve counterarguments are remarks on a variety of irreligious themes, ranging from the nature of miracles and creationist probability to cognitive illusions and prudential wagers. Special attention is paid to topics, arguments, and questions that spring from his incredulity "not only about religion but also about others' credulity." Despite the strong influence of his day job, Paulos says, there isn't a single mathematical formula in the book.

"John Allen Paulos has done us all a great service. Irreligion is an elegant and timely response to the manifold ignorance that still goes by the name of 'faith' in the twenty-first century."
- Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation

"He's done it again. John Allen Paulos has written a charming book that takes you on a journey of flawless logic, with simple and clear examples drawn from math, science, and pop culture. At the end, Paulos has left you with plenty to think about, whether you are religious, irreligious, or anything inbetween."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History, and author of Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries

"For years John Allen Paulos has been our guide for reading newspapers, playing the stock market, and understanding what all those graphs and charts and formulas really mean. No one knows how to dissect an argument better than Paulos. Now he has turned his rapier wit to the grandest question of them all: Is there a God? Those who are religious skeptics will find in Paulos's analysis new ways of looking at both old and new arguments, and those who believe that God's existence can be proven through science, reason, and logic will have to answer to this mathematician's penetrating analysis."
- Michael Shermer, author of How We Believe, The Science of Good and Evil, and Why Darwin Matters

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 51 - 100 of 162 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

51. Comment #109751 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Ducklike. I'm declaring that all true disciples of Quetz not share tea with you. Quetz is a non-vengeful god. I know, because he told me so. But tea shall be withheld until you recant your teddy-bear stance.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

52. Comment #109752 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Dicanu. Just tear them a new a-hole. They will bitch about how nasty your are no matter how politely you write the book. If you're gonna be called a wolf, may as well act like on I 'spose.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

53. Comment #109755 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Hey BAEOZ, you think if Aquinas were alive today, with our benefits of scientific knowledge, would he be an atheist?

Other Comments by bliktor

54. Comment #109757 by Steve Zara on January 9, 2008 at 4:09 pm

I can think of other possibilities such as quantum seas or multi-verse generators that cause Big Bangs.

Or looped spacetimes.

Also, whether or not there is anything to explain depends on your point of view. Due to relativity, from the point of view of a light ray that started travelling from the time of the origin of the universe, nothing has happened yet.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

55. Comment #109760 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Steve Zara -Due to relativity, from the point of view of a light ray that started travelling from the time of the origin of the universe, nothing has happened yet.

Ahh to be a ray of light, having the whole universe in front of you :)

Other Comments by bliktor

56. Comment #109765 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Hey BAEOZ, you think if Aquinas were alive today, with our benefits of scientific knowledge, would he be an atheist?

Unlikely from the little I know of him. He was first a theologian, who used philosophy to support his arguments and convince non-believers. He wasn't a philosopher, who following the truth, came to believe.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

57. Comment #109766 by Diacanu on January 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm

bliktor-

Ahh to be a ray of light, having the whole universe in front of you :)

If I had enough anti-matter handy, I could set that up for you. ;)

Other Comments by Diacanu

58. Comment #109767 by Ducklike on January 9, 2008 at 4:30 pm

An Inquisition? Ouch, didn't expect that!

Okay Okay,... the Teddy Bear does not exist (no cause).

May I please have some tea?

Other Comments by Ducklike

59. Comment #109771 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 4:39 pm

BAEOZ -Unlikely from the little I know of him. He was first a theologian, who used philosophy to support his arguments and convince non-believers. He wasn't a philosopher, who following the truth, came to believe.

Perhaps, maybe I'm just to optimistic at heart.

Other Comments by bliktor

60. Comment #109772 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Diacanu -If I had enough anti-matter handy, I could set that up for you. ;)

Really? Awesome, I'll just go carjack the Enterprise and we'll be gold. Hmm... maybe carjack isn't the right word, spacejack perhaps?

Other Comments by bliktor

61. Comment #109773 by Big City on January 9, 2008 at 4:44 pm

OsakaGuy,
Thanks a lot for that reference and link! Very helpful.

Everyone else,
The link to John Allen Paulos's Beyond Belief 07 speech that OsakaGuy posted earlier deals directly with the book. He reads excerpts from it and describes how people's misconceptions about math and probabilty affect the way they think about logic. It's very interesting. Reminds me of the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode "Numbers".

Now I understand how his profession is relevant to the topic.
But I still say most Christians see being smart as a flaw.

Other Comments by Big City

62. Comment #109774 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition Ducklike! Now we shall punish you with the fluffy cushion, on which you may sit, while we share tea.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

63. Comment #109775 by Greyman on January 9, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Comment: #109748 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Everything that exists has a cause
The universe exists
Therefore the universe has a cause
Theists such as William Lane Craig have tried to use this argument to prove God's existence stating that since the universe has a cause, it must be a creator since there's no other possible cause for a universe to come into existence.

Everything that exists has a cause.
God (First Cause) does not have a cause.
Therefore: God does not exist.

Other Comments by Greyman

64. Comment #109776 by notsobad on January 9, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Ugh, economics, now math.
We need another funny one.

still have Carlin, Maher, now Pat Condell (he needs to make it big though)

Other Comments by notsobad

65. Comment #109778 by Bookman on January 9, 2008 at 4:52 pm

The book is a very good follow up to his book "Innummeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and It's Consequences". There are no new arguments in it (how could there be?) but it's a good, and humorous, assault on the logical fallacies and magical thinking inherent in god-belief. It's a good addition to the genre and definitely worth a look.

Other Comments by Bookman

66. Comment #109783 by Diacanu on January 9, 2008 at 5:18 pm

notsobad-

still have Carlin, Maher, now Pat Condell (he needs to make it big though)

Yeah, that's true.

*Quits before I start*

Other Comments by Diacanu

67. Comment #109784 by Cartomancer on January 9, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Aquinas would probably go wherever he could get the most pies, big fat ball of lard he was...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

68. Comment #109786 by Spinoza on January 9, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Just going to clear something up. Someone said mathematics is "a formal system based on logic".

Which isn't exactly true.

Logicism failed (at least in part because of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem... if I recall my philosophy of mathematics lectures correctly).

In any case, mathematics certainly involves logic, but it is, at least, apparently, impossible to reduce all of mathematics to logic.

Other Comments by Spinoza

69. Comment #109790 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Thanks Spinoza. Bertrand Russell's ghost must be possessing me.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

70. Comment #109791 by St. Anselm on January 9, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Looking at the list of God Proofs provided up top at the intro, it seems that most philosophers and logicians have dis-proven them -ofcourse with the exception of my name-sake's Ontological Proof.

Though sketchy as the proof may be, religious and non-religious individuals do not see anything meaningful to the proof since they often get bogged down by ideas of "the most powerful being, etc..," I can state that even Kant and (to the best of my knowledge) Russel, could not disprove it logically.

It will be interesting to see if Paulos truly disproves the proof logically or simply dismisses it.

Other Comments by St. Anselm

71. Comment #109792 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Imagine the greatest sundae possible.
This sundae would be greater if it were real.
Thus the sundae must be real (else it's not the greatest as defined above).

What doesn't impress me about the ontological argument (not proof) is that it assumes that being is greater than not being. Why?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

72. Comment #109793 by Cartomancer on January 9, 2008 at 6:08 pm

The illogical part of Anselm's Ontological Argument is the assumption that "existence" is in any way connected with "perfection". This emerges from his deeply classical belief that there is such a thing as objective ontological excellence, which there clearly is not. Dawkins says something very similar to this too. As does Russell I think.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

73. Comment #109794 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 6:09 pm

The best version of the ontological argument I've read was something like:

The more difficult a task for a creator, the greater the accomplishment.
If the creator didn't exist, there could be no greater accomplishment.
Therefore the creator didn't exist.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

74. Comment #109795 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 6:10 pm

"existence" is in any way connected with "perfection"

That's sort of what I was getting at. Why is being greater or the perfection of anything?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

75. Comment #109796 by St. Anselm on January 9, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Quote from Spinoza:

"Logicism failed (at least in part because of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem... if I recall my philosophy of mathematics lectures correctly).

In any case, mathematics certainly involves logic, but it is, at least, apparently, impossible to reduce all of mathematics to logic. "

If I remember correctly from both my logic and math classes, Godel did not disprove logic. Rather he used it to come to the conclusion that no single encompassing body of knowledge (i.e. science) can ever explain anything because we ultimately find ourselves back to the certain axioms we have used to define or start that body of knowledge with.

Think of Geometry. Ultimately if you begin the study or the attempts to find everything true in Geometry using Euclid's axioms, everything in *Euclidean* Geometry can be proven to be true. But you will always need some other body of knowledge (perhaps another field of mathematics) that can prove the initial axioms that you used to start.

I'm not too sure about Spinoza's comment about logicism failing. It seems to me that if logic is faulty or lacking in some way, it does not make sense to even think we can be rational beings or that we can think coherently at all. If we assume that to be rational means to make conclusions through valid and "good" logic (forgive me for I cannot remember the other descriptive word for logic at the moment, perhaps in this case "true" would be better than "good" but essentially I mean Logical conclusions that come from their presuppositions which would make them valid and conclusions that are acceptable or good because they reflect some accepted definition of truth), then if logic fails us, we can never know anything beyond our presuppositions since we cannot make that logical bound to go forward and make conclusions.

St. Anselm

Other Comments by St. Anselm

76. Comment #109797 by Goldy on January 9, 2008 at 6:13 pm

From Arab News. God exists and knows everything etc...
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=5&section=0&article=105297&d=10&m=1&y=2008&pix=islam.jpg&category=Islam

Other Comments by Goldy

77. Comment #109800 by Inferno on January 9, 2008 at 6:23 pm

The ontological argument, at most, shows that a god that exists is greater than a god that doesn't exist. But this doesn't mean the god in fact exists.

A car that goes 100km/hr is faster than an imaginary car that goes 100km/hr.

Besides, why is god the greatest thing ever? What's so great about god?

I can imagine the most perfect wife in the world. A part of being the most perfect wife would be that she in fact exists and is married to me. Therefore, I am married to the most perfect wife in the world.

Other Comments by Inferno

78. Comment #109801 by ft77 on January 9, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Thanks for the link to the Atkins video OsakaGuy.

Other Comments by ft77

79. Comment #109802 by Jack Rawlinson on January 9, 2008 at 6:36 pm

I'll be picking this one up. I'm not afraid of maths - I had to do plenty of scary-level maths at Uni - but I doubt there'll be much of that here. None of the "arguments" mentioned for God need any heavy maths in order to dispose of them.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

80. Comment #109803 by Jack Rawlinson on January 9, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Oh, and the ontological argument has more holes in it than a crate of Swiss cheese in a leaky boat. The only difficulty one is faced with in dealing with that piece of airheaded nonsense is deciding which of the many possible lines of attack to choose first. Only very low-IQ god-botherers even try to advance that one seriously these days.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

81. Comment #109804 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Only very low-IQ god-botherers even try to advance that one seriously these days.

I was just reading an article on the ontological argument by Alvin Plantinga. Makes me smile to think of him described that way. :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

82. Comment #109807 by cryptographix on January 9, 2008 at 6:58 pm

This book sounds really cool. I'd love to see the author join the "New Atheists" by engaging in public debates and such.

Other Comments by cryptographix

83. Comment #109808 by Vinelectric on January 9, 2008 at 6:59 pm

epeeist

P1 - is false. We know that things like virtual particles are created and annihilated all the time.

Unless you're familiar with particle/quantum physics you may think of this as yet another form of an argument from ignorance!

I'm sure you've come across this parody before:
"We scientists don't know a cause for such particles, thus we assume there is no cause and that the kalam argument falls flat on its nose"

In layman's logic this comes across as a sound criticism to your refusal of the first premise of the kalam or similar arguments. I prefer to criticize the "assertion of a cause when there's demonstrably none". Works everytime!

Other Comments by Vinelectric

84. Comment #109809 by Vinelectric on January 9, 2008 at 7:13 pm

BigCity

I don't really understand how the author being a mathematician figures into the argument.

And I can't figure out why you need a specialist to explain something that is, apparently, central to our existence! Sort of gives it away, doesn't it?

Other Comments by Vinelectric

85. Comment #109810 by Eratosthenes on January 9, 2008 at 7:41 pm

BAEOZ,

This is how Paulos structures the 1st Cause argument in his book...

1. Everything has a cause, or perhaps many causes.
2. Nothing is its own cause.
3.Causal chains can't go on forever.
4. So there has to be a first cause.
5. That first cause is God, who therefore exists.

(skipping a paragraph)

So have we found God? Is He simply the Prime Bowler or the Big Banger? Does this clinch it? Of course not. The argument doesn't even come close. One gaping hole in it is Assumption 1, which might be better formulated as: Either everything has a cause or there's something that doesn't. The first-cause argument collapses into this hole whichever tack we take. If everything has a cause, then God does, too, and there is no first cause. And if something doesn't have a cause, it may as well be the physical world
as God or a tortoise.

Other Comments by Eratosthenes

86. Comment #109812 by Amnis73 on January 9, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Hi everyone - I'm a new kid in this realm of cyberspace, and I'm thrilled to find something so in tune with my line of thinking. Thanks for the loads of insight so many of you have expressed in your posts, I find them entertaining and very thought-provoking!

Diacanu, I noticed you made mention of 'the transhuman war,' it's a concept coincidentally mentioned this afternoon by my god-fearing, extremely eccentric grandmother (and I can't say that I'm putting any stock into that point of view). I've never heard of transhumanism before. What is that all about? Can anyone direct me to some impartial literature about transhumanism? Or sum it up here, if it can be adequately simplified?

Other Comments by Amnis73

87. Comment #109828 by wajid on January 9, 2008 at 9:24 pm

just ordered by the book....have been re-reading all the current big hitters - dawkins, hitchens, harris etc and have been itching to read more from another author.....should be damn interesting

Other Comments by wajid

88. Comment #109829 by Big City on January 9, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Amnis,
Transhumanism is the idea that humans have evolved to the point that we now have a means (technology) to supersede evolution. In other words, survival of the fittest and natural selection took a relatively long time, but got us to such an advanced level that we can take advancement into our own hands.

This fact, and its implications, means that we are becoming a level of human that is hardly comparable with, say, medieval man. We are already modifying ourselves in ways that they would think is magic. Soon we will merge with technology, and eventually, the boundary between us and computers will blur. Technology is making us posthuman. If you are looking for beginning information, I would search wikipedia for transhumanism or posthuman and follow the links and search for articles about the major players.

A great set of books on the topic, for any level of reader/interest, are Ray Kurzweil's "The Age of Spiritual Machines" and "The Singularity is Near". They are two of the most interesting books I have read. They should give you a very good grasp of the topic.

I honestly cannot recommend these books enough.

Other Comments by Big City

89. Comment #109831 by Edanator on January 9, 2008 at 9:51 pm

Re. 14. Comment #109705 by BAEOZ: "There are things that don't have a cause. I believe an excited electron emitting a photon and going to a lower energy state is one such thing."

Isn't the cause, the phenomena which excited the electron into the higher energy state in the first place? Same for radioactive decay, which is often used as another example of uncaused events, where the nucleus of the atom exists in a higher energy state. All higher energy states can ultimately be traced back to the Big Bang, where all energy originated, and we are back at square one. Is my logic flawed?

The virtual particles is a much better example of events, seemingly uncaused. I like the approach of Vinelectric to critique the "assertion of a cause when there's demonstrably none".

Other Comments by Edanator

90. Comment #109832 by Edanator on January 9, 2008 at 9:57 pm

Re 63. Comment #109775 by Greyman:
1. Everything that exists has a cause.
2. God (First Cause) does not have a cause.
3. Therefore: God does not exist.

Nice! If we, for the sake of argument, should accept the first premise, is there any logical flaw in Greyman's thinking?

Other Comments by Edanator

91. Comment #109833 by ghuckin on January 9, 2008 at 10:04 pm

I hope it has a distinctive cover, like "Delusion" so I can continue to irritate the bible-study brigade on the bus each morning.

Other Comments by ghuckin

92. Comment #109838 by Richard Morgan on January 9, 2008 at 10:25 pm

bliktor :

Ahh to be a ray of light, having the whole universe in front of you.

Jesus wants me for a sunbeam,
To shine for Him each day;

1. Once more Jesus addressed the crowd. He said, I am the Light of the world. He who follows Me will not be walking in the dark, but will have the Light which is Life. John 8:12

Jesus: "Been there, done that."

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

93. Comment #109839 by AshtonBlack on January 9, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Amnis 73.

This is where D's call to fight the transhuman war came from....
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2096,Mother-Nature-is-Not-Our-Friend,Sam-Harris

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

94. Comment #109840 by raptur on January 9, 2008 at 10:31 pm

RE: Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem

Both posts have been a little off. Do people mind if I take a break from lurking for a bit? ;)

When working in a symbolic logic, there are two major systems. One is the _semantics_, which tells you how to determine whether a particular sentence is _entailed_ (i.e. must be true) by a given set of sentences you are presuming to be true called axioms. This set may consist only of tautologies like: "if P is true then P is true". For example, you may accept as true:

(1) All Men Are Mortal
(2) Socrates Is A Man

and then you might consider:

(3) Socrates Is Mortal

The semantics of first order logic, which is the simplest logic needed to capture this argument, consists of set-theoretic machinery to demonstrate that it is not possible for (3) to be false if (1) and (2) are true. So we say that (1) and (2) _entail_ (3).

The other is the _derivational system_, which tells you what sorts of transformations you are allowed to perform on sentences to get new sentences. So (1) and (2), in quasi-formal terms, would look like:

(1') (forall x)(if Man(x) then Mortal(x))
(2') Man(socrates)

One of the derivational rules of first-order logic says that you can chop off a (forall x) and substitute every occurrence of 'x' (a _variable_) with some _name_. If we do this to (1') and substitute 'x' with 'socrates,' we get:

(4) if Man(socrates) then Mortal(socrates)

Another derivational rule says that if you have an 'if-then' statement, and you also have the beginning of the 'if-then' statement, then you get the end of the 'if-then' statement. (2') provides the beginning of (4), giving us:

(5) Mortal(socrates)

Which is just the quasi-formal way of saying "Socrates Is Mortal." So we say that (1') and (2') _prove_ (5).

Notice, however, that it is not immediately obvious that these two systems have anything to do with each other. The semantics just tells you whether groups of sentences are logically consistent, but does not say anything about obtaining a larger group of logically consistent sentences. The derivational system, on the other hand, just tells you how to move around symbols in certain sorts of ways to get new sentences, without regard to what they actually mean. So how do we know that if something is _provable_ from a (finite) set of sentences, then it is _entailed_ from that set? Likewise, how do we know that if something is _entailed_ from a set of sentences, then it is _provable_?

The first question is answered by doing soundness proofs. If a particular logic is not sound, it is basically worthless because it is possible to prove things that are false using that logic. Whenever people propose new kinds of logics, soundness proofs are the first things they do. The second question is answered by doing completeness proofs: given a finite set of axioms, is it possible to mechanically derive every statement that is necessarily true? Sentential logic and first-order predicate logic are, in fact, complete. What Goedel demonstrated is that higher-order predicate logic is _not_ complete. So he did not prove logic wrong or anything like that: higher-order logic is still sound, so everything that you do manage to derive will be true (presuming your axioms are true). You just are not guaranteed to derive everything that's true. If we were, it should be possible in principle to write a computer program that would just run day and night solving all of mathematics automatically through a brute-force breadth-first search.

Does this make sense?

Other Comments by raptur

95. Comment #109845 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 9, 2008 at 10:42 pm

63. Comment #109775 by Greyman

1. Everything that exists has a cause.
2. God (First Cause) does not have a cause.
3. Therefore: God does not exist

I love this also! But I think we overuse logic at the quantum level. It's pretty much accepted that the laws of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics (cause / effect) break down in a singularity, which is another way of saying that the "laws" applicable in a singularity are the ones to understand the origin of the universe with, not our simplistic logic (satisfying as it may be, to our smart monkey-minds).

We should simply dismiss the first cause argument, and not be drawn into it. Second choice in a debate: go with the ouroborus logic of Greyman, which nibbles the tail of the argument and swallows it whole, though it uses the same premise, and basically says that: (EDIT) "Apples are red. My car is not red. This is the reason my car does not taste like an apple"

Nevertheless: is this any worse than the "First Cause" argument?

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

96. Comment #109846 by Richard Morgan on January 9, 2008 at 10:53 pm

prettygoodformonkeys:

My car, therefore, tastes like an apple.

This, at least, is falsifiable. I just ate a red car. And, yes, it tasted just like an apple.
(I'm so happy we can have these intellectual discussions here.)

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

97. Comment #109851 by LorienRyan on January 9, 2008 at 11:39 pm

I think it's funny, we know all kinds of things exist like say potatoes, but there aren't any amazingly intricate arguements for things like potatoes, because they just exist, right? Well, where is God? I've heard all the arguments, where the hell is He?

Other Comments by LorienRyan

98. Comment #109852 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Comment #109840 by raptur

Both posts have been a little off. Do people mind if I take a break from lurking for a bit? ;)

Help yourself.

given a finite set of axioms

The other part of this that you don't make explicit is that you can't make the system complete by adding more axioms.

Other Comments by epeeist

99. Comment #109855 by studiorat on January 9, 2008 at 11:54 pm

"Okay, so how should my funny atheist book go?"

How about a children's book in the style of Dr. Seuss?

Actually, I think a freethinking book for kids wouldn't be a bad idea. It would certainly be better than those horrid childrens illustrated bible that the "flocks" are trying to push on our kids...

Other Comments by studiorat

100. Comment #109858 by Philip1978 on January 10, 2008 at 12:40 am

Diacanu,

I think you should write a book, call it

"If Jerry Falwell had an enema...!"

Obviously ask Hitch first if its ok but I am sure it would go down brilliantly!

:)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978