You can find several summaries of my new book
The Christian Delusion
out there. But if you think dealing with a summary of a book is the same thing as dealing with the arguments in it, then think again. One professor did this with my previous book
Why I Became an Atheist,
and this is how I responded:
6) That although there are many other similar mythological stories told in Ancient Near Eastern Literature that pre-date what we read in the Bible, the stories in the Bible are about real events and real people.
Today I visited a "tent-making" pentecostal preacher/contractor friend and I was surprised to find he had a massive library filling up nearly a whole bedroom sized office space in his home. I browsed the books and did not find one book written by a liberal or a skeptic. I found Bible commentaries from conservative publishers, self-help psychology based Christian books (like how to have a good marriage, or raise good Christian kids), expositor's preaching books, spiritual warfare books, and a handful of apologetic books written by conservatives. He is a conservative and only reads conservative books. So no wonder he's a conservative. He does not have to read what the liberals say, or the skeptics. Others do that for him who tell him why they are wrong. His library assumes that the Bible is true. All he needs to do is understand the Bible and apply it. His reading is based on trust. He trusts conservatives to tell him how to understand, apply, and preach the truth. He does not trust anyone else. Others will deceive him. Sheesh.
5) That there was a first human pair (Adam & Eve) who so grievously sinned against God when tested that all of the rest of us are being punished for it (including animals), even though no one but the first human pair deserved to be punished. If it's argued that all of us deserve to be punished because we all would have sinned, then the test was a sham. For only if some of us would not have sinned can the test be considered a fair one. But if some of us would not have sinned under the same initial conditions then there are people who are being punished for something they never would have done.
4) That the highest created being, known as Satan or the Devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent omniscient omnibenelovent omnipresent God, and expected to win--which makes Satan out to be pure evil and dumber than a box of rocks.
3) There must exist a perfectly good, omnipotent God, who created a perfectly good universe out of a desire/need to glorify himself by rewarding in heaven the few human beings who just got lucky to believe by being born at the right time and place, and who will condemn to hell those who do not believe.
In the March '08 issue of
Scientific American is an article describing the future of our universe. First click on the scanned in image.
I'm going to start a series of posts describing what must be the case if Christianity is true. When done I'll put them all together so Christians can see the formidable obstacles there are to their faith at a glance.
1) There must be a God who is a simple being yet made up of three inexplicable persons existing forever outside of time without a beginning, who therefore never learned anything new, never took a risk, never made a decision, never disagreed within the Godhead, and never had a prior moment to freely choose his own nature.
2) There must be a personal non-embodied omnipresent God who created the physical universe ex-nihilo in the first moment of time who will subsequently forever experience a sequence of events in time.
God could not have made all creatures as vegans/vegetarians, could he? Nope. Not a chance. It was impossible for him. Right?
Someone recently wrote this to me. At one time I too was scared to doubt. But I was never scared of Allah's threat of hell. In fact, I never gave it a thought. Why are people scared of the Christian hell when they have never been scared of the Muslim hell? When Muslims leave their faith they are just as scared of Allah's hell as Christians seem to be about Yahweh's hell. If Christians are not scared of Allah's hell then they should not be scared of Yahweh's hell. Both conceptions of hell are culturally inherited beliefs.
Since I appear so cocksure that Christianity is a delusion some people think I'm a fundamentalist on a par with the late Jerry Falwell. Here's a discussion I'm having about this with a Christian philosopher:
See what you think. I liked his opening statement.
Christians accept the results of science in a vast number of areas. That is, except for just a few that contradict their holy ancient superstitious book. This video below is a nice summary of the results of science. How does religion stack up with science? Let's see, that book says there was a universal flood (so say many Christians). Science shows that this did not happen. What to do, what to do? How do I decide? Let's see, science says virgins don't have babies. Science shows this could not happen. What to do, what to do? How do I decide? That's easy for me. You?
Here's a great clip in which Ricky Gervais tells lies in order to give people hope for a life after death. It's hilarious.
This is some funny stuff and includes a few extra brilliant jabs in the middle. Enjoy.
What do you think? See below:
Here is an interesting NBC Dateline story about the dangers of faith based reasoning and the virtues of skepticism. Faith can be twisted by feeble human minds into believing what they want to believe against their own consciences. It's a tragic but important story. Think you are immune believer? Think twice if you have the faith these believers had.
Richard Dawkins provides a great example of how control beliefs control how believers see the evidence. They are indoctrinated (or brainwashed) to believe from birth and that's it. Watch him below:
These important findings reinforce my chapter on The Darwinian Problem of Evil for 
. While I do not like the title of the book, which is misleading for a few reasons, including the fact that Stone does not deal at all with my most recent book, The Christian Delusion (TCD), Stone's book is a respectfully written one. But anyone who reads Jason Long’s chapter in TCD will see quite plainly what Stone is doing. He’s doing his best to gerrymander around my arguments in typical political redistricting fashion in order to maintain his faith. It’s a wonderful case study in cognitive dissonance reduction. Let me explain by briefly commenting on his book, which he graciously sent me.