List price: $15.99|
Our price: $10.87
Usually ships in 24 hours
Average customer rating:
4.0 out of 5
ISBN/ASIN : 1581345615
Manufacturer : Crossway Books|
Release data : 12 March, 2004
Search for related products
A selection of product reviews
The title of his book is proof of his lack of intelligence.
Anybody who has the ability to think clearly would understand how misleading and disengenous this book title is. Another deceiving christian tactic ho hum. Deception is not a virtue *cough cough*. First off an atheist LACKS a belief in a theistic god or gods. An atheist has found the arguments and purported evidence shown by believers of a theistic god or gods to be wanting. Negative atheism. He or she has found NO REASONS to believe in a theistic god or gods. He or she has found through the use of reason and what we know of the natural world and how it works in naturalistic terms, reasons for not invoking any supernaturalism into the world and hence no reason to believe in a theistic god or gods. Positive atheism. Neither assesment involves faith whatsoever, it involves looking at the evidence and using your reasoning skills that you use in daily life and not turning them off when thinking about religious matters. It is following the evidence wherever the evidence leads you despite your wishes and hopes. Faith is specifically believing IN SPITE of NO evidence or lack of evidence or an insufficent degree of evidence. That is intellectually dishonest but your right nonetheless. It is also not a virtue despite what people commonly think for some reason. If you were shown a math problem and understood the conclusion yet willed yourself to disbelieve it in spite of the evidence would that be a virtue? You cannot cop out by saying religion is an altogether different category because it involves faith. If belief in god just involved faith when all is said and done(which it surely seems to be) then why does theology exist? Why do people keep discussing what this or that scriptural writing means? Why do believers try to use science when it seems to support some historical conclusion yet ignore science when it falsifies claims of religion? Why are they trying to put religion in science classrooms? ("unintelligent design") Of course finding history in the bible or any other sacred book is not surprising but it says nothing in regards to the metaphysics. Most sane humans lack a belief in gnomes yet I seriously doubt people define themselves as agnomist or say they have no faith in gnomes! People lack beliefs in an infinite amount of objects, do they define themselves as apurplecowist,aflyingnunist who lack faith in these objects! No. Does that mean they have faith in the non existence of these objects. Once again NO. They have good reasons to not believe in them. They know the emperical evidence does not exist at this time and the probabability of evidence ever coming into light is low. If evidence comes along to suggest gnomes exist then the agnomist will no longer be a agnomist and will become a gnomist. Pretty simple. Once again the conversion from a non belief to a belief has nothing to do with faith. In fact I would suggest the probability of the existence of gnomes, purple cows and flying nuns to be higher then the probability of a theistic god or gods(especially defined by "sacred" books which you most assurdely must have faith in in spite of the innumerable claims falsified). Why? Because we actually do have evidence of people with dwarfism. Small people exist. We have evidence of cows and of purple objects. We have evidence of nuns and the ability of other species of animals to fly and the ability of engineers to devise flying machines! We see flying objects in the sky. They are called planes! LOL. So there is no faith involved in atheism because there is no belief to begin with. It is a LACK of belief. Understood? If you have no reason or reasons to believe in the existence of an object then faith hardly comes into the picture. Understood? Do you the believer have FAITH that atheist exist? lol. I don't have faith in the existence of believers, I have evidence and good reasons to back up my belief in their existence! Atheism is a LACK of belief. Just like you lack a belief in hobgoblins. If you believed in hobgoblins contrary to all the facts of the world then that is FAITH. So quit saying atheism is a religion or faith movement in itself when there is no belief in the first place that defines it.
A frustrating book
I'm new to apologetics and the arguments of evolution and creation, theists and atheists and the such. I have been reading books and listened to debates on the subject. I was looking for a book that outlined, explained and provided evidence for a creator or at least identified the proofs and facts for why theists believe in a creator. Instead all I got was a book that explained everything that was wrong with the 'atheists' arguments and very little of the former. Its frustrating to read these books because they spend more time arguing why the other is wrong instead of concentrating their efforts on arguing their own points. The 'atheists' books that I've read tend to do less mud slinging and spend more time stating their points than the 'theists' ones. This book does a much better job of reinforcing the beliefs of a believer than shaking the foundation of a non-believer.
I was also frustrated by the use of probability as a reason for a creator. This idea of "what are the chances of things being as they are today." But this assumes that the result of things being as they are today was planned from the start. So it feels backwards to figure out the probability of things as they are today. If you apply this thinking it makes everything that happens nearly improbable. For instance, what are the chance of me being alive? My parents needed to meet, they needed to be born so, my grandparents needed to meet and their parents needed to meet so on and so on. All of the circumstances and things that needed to happen for me to be alive is nearly improbable unless me being here was planned from the start.
I'm paraphrasing but, the authors state that in order for things to be just right and as they are today to support life that there is one chance in one number with 138 zeros after it. Therefore there must be a creator. The authors are confusing probability as evidence. Later in the book they denounce David Hume's anti-miracle argument because they say that "Hume confuses probability with evidence." So where it benefits the authors case they use probability as reinforcement and then in the other case say probability is bunk reasoning.
One final thought is the idea behind DNA and the single cell that houses 1000 encyclopedia's full of data and how could this 'just happen'. (I'm probably way out of my league here.) The authors say that 'Darwinists' (isn't it evolutionists?) say this cell magically appeared. I'm no biologist but isn't it stated that evolutionists don't say that life started at this single 1000 encyclopedia cell but that the original cells had no DNA and reproduction started by division (falling apart) and slowly grew from there?
Overall, if you are a believer this will reinforce your original beliefs as it enhances and explains stuff you've already been taught and/or studied. If you are a non-believer its just going to leave you frustrated and you'll have to try another book like I will have to do.
An outstanding presentation of the many questions and theories concerning God , belief, and faith.
A must read for believers as well as atheists