Remember to submit something to the next carnival, or put your own blog forward for the prestigious job of hosting the carnival!

As a side note, I’ve been meaning to update this blog a lot more often, but every time I’ve sat down to write a post, something else has barged in the way, whether it be important emails I have to answer, work that has to be done, or (most recently) a breach of my PayPal account which almost cost me $300 I don’t have. Nevertheless, I’m finally emerging from the flow of “more-important-than-blogging” things, and there will be a few articles up this week on my adventures in Egypt, and my delving into Astrology!

Given that Twitter is a far better (and quicker) way of getting my thoughts out, if you miss me you can always follow my thoughts there. My account is @ah8r.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Carnival Of The Godless #90
• Carnival of the Godless #122
• Carnival of the Godless #121
• Carnival of the Godless #114
• Carnival of the Godless #110

Unfortunately, there's probably no Christmas either...

The book comes out in the UK on October 1st, and Brits can pre-order a copy through Amazon (sorry Yanks). Whilst you are there, don’t forget to pre-order a copy of Richard Dawkins new book, “The Greatest Show on Earth” if you haven’t already (what on earth were you waiting for?!?).

Dawkins’ book is of course about Evolution, whilst Ariane’s is a compilation of tips offered by scientists, comedians, authors, etc in order to help you survive the Xmas holiday. All that we have left to wonder about is how many other things we can use that font (and indeed the colour scheme) on before it gets old. Perhaps we could make some un-festive “There’s probably no god” wrapping paper?

Now what are you waiting for? The post is over! Go order the books! Ariane Sherine reported earlier on Twitter that the book was now at the #34 spot on Amazon’s future releases chart. 34??? Methinks that score needs vast improvements! Let’s have it at #1 position by the end of the week; if we did it for the Atheist Bus Campaign, we can do it for a book.

Update: Aparently Ariane reads my blog, and has kindly given me a hi-res image of the book cover. Now you have literally no excuse not to pre-order it!

Possibly Related Posts:

• All Aboard The Atheist…Billboard?!?
• My Atheist Bus
• The Atheist Jew Can’t Keep His Hands Off Me
• Imaginary Friend – An Atheist Thriller
• Ayn Rand Is A Legend

As I have previously mentioned, I was sent a signed copy of Ray’s latest book, and over the next few weeks I will be going over it chapter by chapter; reading and debunking its content so you don’t have to. For now though, I thank Darrin for agreeing to this interview, and for his thorough answers to my questions. The interview is pretty long, so it’s below the fold of this post.

• Since reading Ray’s book, you say you have backslid to agnostic. Could you expand on your beliefs a bit further? Are you using the more modern definition of agnosticism as being “unsure”, or are you more of an “agnostic” atheist as defined by Thomas Huxley?

I have indeed “backslid” to agnostic, as Ray wrote on his WorldNetDaily article, although Ray did not indicate in the article the exact position where I ended up, nor did Ray directly link my reading of his book with the cause of this backsliding. So, in a sense, Ray is absolutely correct, but in a way that’s completely misleading. I wrote him to thank him for the copy, as he and Kirk took their time to sign it for me, but I had just received the book in the mail and had not had time to read it yet. My “deconversion” from atheism came before that time. I mentioned my newfound agnosticism and asked if we could speak on the phone again, but he said he was busy with sixty-odd interviews or something. That response was quite terse and unconcerned compared to the previous times we’d spoken, and that was the end of our contact.

There are certainly many different definitions and breeds of agnostic. Many agnostics (and a few Deists, for that matter) come across as poorly as many of the atheists that I address in the foreword for Ray’s book, and express a wish to do no more than troll Christians, ignore their responses, and fail to check any arguments, so they can simply get a rise from believers.

I am not one of this breed; if I were to specify with an exact label, I’d call myself a “searching Agnostic” – although my personal research is currently centered around the validity and consistency of the Christian faith in particular (I plan to begin studying Islam and Judaism soon, as well), my main focus is discovering for sure the basis of it all: whether or not a creator God exists. All further questions regarding whether such a being designed this hypothetical “spark” of creation and cared about us humans that followed are also routinely considered, but my main focus is currently on all arguments for God’s existence (excepting the Ontological Argument, which has been, even in Plantinga’s stronger formulation, decidedly refuted, and also excepting the Teleological Argument, which begs the question).

I turned agnostic because I recognized three points following a personal meeting in November with Dr. William Lane Craig, a prominent Christian apologist and debater:

(1) As mentioned, I have not reflected adequately upon the arguments for God, with the greatest strength weighing on Bill’s (Dr. Craig’s) “Kalam Cosmological Argument.” I had heard this as an atheist, and simply recycled such soundly refuted counters like “who made God?” and positing such things as cyclic models of the universe and inflationary models and all that. After discovering that such responses are long in their graves, I’ve moved onto Dr. Morriston and Dr. Quentin Smith’s counters to Kalam, and even after reading those, I still find myself questioning and inventing counterarguments against both sides. This fence-sitting contributed to my agnosticism.

(2) My worldview neither entails nor denies that God exists. I found this out on personal reflection, and since this would take us too far off-topic, I will withhold further comment on this matter.

(3) Most importantly, I discovered that my reason for maintaining my atheism – namely, that “no proof for God is proof against God” – is a logical fallacy. One cannot reach “no proof for X, therefore not-X”; that’s a fallacy called (formally, not pejoratively) the argument from ignorance. I’ve been offered by Dr. Richard Carrier that such a position was, in fact, valid and *not* the argument from ignorance, and I will follow up on the evidence for his saying that (we did not have time before his debate with Craig in Missouri to address it in full personally), but until then, I can neither say God does or does not exist, specifically because I am exploring whether the Universe was or was not created – or, more broadly in the since of Aquinas, at least necessary proceeding from such a being.

• I think most atheists probably know Ray Comfort for his “banana argument”, his new argument that claims “An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything.”, and his ignorance on the theory of evolution. Why should atheists listen to Ray when he misrepresents both us and science so much?

Curiously enough, I did not know Ray Comfort that well when I did the intro, and had discovered his link somewhere in the maze of the blogosphere. Noticing the large amount of comments under his top few articles, I figured he was some type of apologist. I’d seen references and Googled links to this “banana argument,” but did not find them worthy of my time, being that his association with my old childhood hero Kirk Cameron piqued my attention more. I did not properly research the man beyond some street-preaching videos on YouTube.

I wrote the introduction shortly thereafter, within a commentary thread linked to a blog post requesting atheists to write potential introductions. I was fresh off of a fight with a YouTube atheist whose name ought to go unmentioned, and still had a bitter taste in my mouth from some comparatively poor “new” atheist arguments I’d read in the popular literature and seen on the Internet (with the bottom of the barrel being the faulty Horus-connection Christ Myth theory as presented by the worst film ever made, “Zeitgeist”). Perusing the other “introductions” in the thread yielded one or two decent ones out of dozens of outright insulting polemics, and I blew my top and wrote what I did. I figured by the spirit of the book that Ray would have chosen one of the many angry polemics to back up the title he had planned, so I was shocked when I received the message that mine was chosen over the others in the thread for printing.

That intro was sparked by anger, but the words weren’t caused by it – I felt the same way while I still held to atheism even after my anger subsided, and I still feel the same way today, so it’s not simply some fire-starting David Berlinski-esque trolling. Like Tony Flew, I’m pretty mad at the state of skepticism today. Thus, in the intro, I invited atheists to read and refute Ray’s arguments, and even though I later discovered that they were not particularly strong, I doubt many skeptics read anything beyond the first chapter available on Amazon.

It may not be worthy of the work to refute even a sentence, some may say, but Ray is a popular voice, and that alone validates some kind of action from the atheist and nonbeliever (I will put in a few of my own counters here, myself). The Rational Response Squad, with whom I’ve disagreed on many occasions, offered a relatively patient response to Ray on national television, and none of them exploded in rage like many of Ray’s readers do.

Rationally tempered frustration for Ray, especially when he does not listen to matters about evolution, is valid, however; but, if Ray does not change and show a willingness to learn, one must (to paraphrase the “Good Book”) simply dust one’s feet and walk to someone more willing to stick to the arguments, as cursing obviously does no good. If Ray is not worthy to argue against, then in your view, wasting too much time on Ray and not approaching the caliber of the works from an Alvin Plantinga, say, will do nothing but further distort your view on the stronger arguments for Christianity that will at least give you a greater respect for those who hold the religion and practice it in a consistent and open manner.

As for the Banana Argument – well, people have to understand something about Ray. Many do not know this, but Ray is being groomed by Calvinists, including the popular speaker Paul Washer and the knowledgeable debater and podcast host Dr. James White. Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis, and the hyper-Calvinist Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr. are quoted on his back cover, and Ray’s book teems with typical Calvinist approaches (for instance, Ray refers to John 6, a popular Calvinist passage, in his answer to the question at the bottom of page 45 in his book).

Ray himself told me he was “on the fence” about Calvinism – which, for those who are unfamiliar, is a minority, albeit vocal, Christian worldview that holds that man doesn’t have the free will to choose God and that the “truly saved” are chosen by God – and shows nearly schizophrenic signs both for and against the position on his blog and in his book. I don’t know how much he actually knows about this subject (he calls Arminianism, or the general name for the majority of Christians who do hold to free will as commonly defined, “Armenianism” somewhere in the book), but the coaching from his Calvinist friends is clear throughout. Odd, really, given Kirk’s participation in “Left Behind” – a movie series based on books to which Calvinist eschatology (loosely meaning “end times” Biblical interpretation) stands vehemently opposed.

Presuppositional apologetics, a methodology of some subdivisions of Calvinism, is a way of delivering the Christian message without calling you to convert to God, since due to their belief in God’s sole choice in saving one cannot come to believe on evidence or old time “Pentecostal Sunday conversion.” Thus, the presuppositionalist presents Christianity in a way that demonstrates how, if taken as a presumption, “life, the Universe, and everything” is explained. In the (paraphrased) words of my Calvinist friend Ben Maas, presuppositionalism simply says “this is what your worldview says about this matter, and here is the way Christianity explains it. Now isn’t that simpler and more consistent?” Dr. Greg Bahnsen, the late apologist who clashed with Gordon Stein in the 80’s, is perhaps the best known practicer of this method, and used the foundations of logic as his centerpiece for his presuppositionalist take on Christianity.

With that background in place, let’s take a look at Ray’s infamous crown jewel. Unfortunately, the Banana Argument is not as well thought-out as Bahnsen’s position, but when I saw the video I knew exactly what Ray was doing, especially considering his presuppositional Calvinist background that his friends no doubt have given him.

Ray is explaining from the Christian position how the banana was designed to be eaten, so as to better allow for the survival of all the species that God supposedly created with a diet that included that fruit (namely, to Ray, humans who have the means to utilize the “tab”). Now, if I recall correctly, the banana in that format was actually developed by men to be that way, and I still think the example itself is VERY weak despite this fact, but I might be one of few skeptics who know what Ray was attempting to demonstrate. It wasn’t a “proof for God,” and cannot be; as above, it was supposed to be an example on Ray’s part of showing how the presupposition of God’s design better explains the existence of such a fruit rather than supposed “random, blind evolution.” It fell flat, and I’m disappointed to see him call his own argument a joke in his book after he got called out on it – that does nothing more than openly demonstrate that the man’s embarrassed.

Does the Banana Argument stink? Yes. But if you see it from the above approach, it at least demonstrates that the man is not totally insane. Ray has a talent for speaking, as his introductory speech in the RRS debate shows, but (as that speech’s content and his book in general likewise shows) his arguments need strengthening. Listening to his opponents who behave rationally would be a good start for him, but in many cases he ignores these opponents, and many opportunities I witnessed in later viewings of his site, which tackled tougher questions than those which do appear in his book, have been ignored.

• What arguments do you think Ray uses that would most likely convince a non-believer, i.e. what are his most powerful arguments in the book?

None. Ray bases the bulk of his arguments in his book on the Bible, reflecting his aforementioned presuppositionalist grooming. I am not particularly a fan of this method; even from a believer’s standpoint, it drives the nonbeliever absolutely nowhere unless it’s presented in such a way to spark his or her interest in the Bible (negatively or positively). After all, if it is God that does the work, presenting the Gospel the way Ray does is all that’s left for the apologist to do.

I suppose if I were forced at gunpoint to answer, I would say Ray’s “nothing created everything?” argument against atheism, but it is flat-out invalid the way he presents it, since he keeps insisting that, according to atheism, there must have been some big black extant “nothing” (like in the Neverending Story or Heidegger’s depressed writings or something) that pooped out a Universe. But there is no “before the Universe,” since time began with the Universe, and there is no existent state of “nothing” – even an unstable vacuum, which is not the case sans the Universe, is *something*.

• You mentioned in the foreword that most new atheist books demonstrate a “lack of both logic and knowledge” when talking about Christianity. Which atheist books do you think do this the most, and which books would you recommend as good critical reading?

I would like to preface this by stating that I deconverted in the Sagan/Randi/Penn and Teller era, before the “new” atheists were anything more than Richard Dawkins’ (wonderful) book “Blind Watchmaker.” There was still a shred of respect in that era, as Penn’s recent “Gift of a Bible” video demonstrates – a video all skeptics should watch and consider, by the way, before yelling at the next person offering them a New Testament with kind words.

I will not go deeply into this, but like my fledgling days as an atheist, these books typically demonstrate an inadequate consideration of Christian arguments before launching into diatribes. I have not yet read Dan Dennett’s book, but as for the other three “four horseman,” they are not of much comparative worth despite their popularity. Harris has much to say (including a very good establishment of morality very close to my own convictions on the subject), but I believe his attacks on modernism in religion and its enabling of extremism are unfounded, and the book ends on a very sour note with some sort of mystical consciousness-denying exercise.

I suppose Dawkins’ book is the strongest of the three I’ve read out of the “Four Horsemen,” although many books on the back shelf of philosophy and religion are much better and do not reuse many of the old canards that Dawkins states (example: “the even more complex designer” argument). Compare that last parenthetical argument of Dawkins’, for instance, with its fellow arguments in “The Improbability of God,” and you can see how weak the New Atheists’ spokespersons actually grasp the philosophical considerations needed to properly address the reasonable and well-learned believer’s arguments.

Vic Stenger is commonly regarded as another horse, and although “God: The Failed Hypothesis” soundly refutes the Argument from Design, it fails on many other counts, including a well-refuted pile of counterarguments for the nonexistence of God. If you want a New Atheist book to get, though, I guess I would say this would be the one to pick up to begin wading out of the shallow end of the pool.

I’ve saved Hitchens for last for a reason – he’s a hilarious polemicist and probably a joy to meet in person, but after watching his debate with Turek and seeing that he was unprepared for many of Frank’s arguments, I would like some kind of stage here to warn him that his debate in a week and a half with the aforementioned Bill Craig will be much more challenging (even many atheists I know concede this). Craig is no Banana Man and does not launch into the polemics of a Dinesh D’Souza (who Chris did effectively debate). The Hitch needs to do what he can in the time he has remaining to prepare – read some debates Craig had with Quentin Smith or Ray Bradley, for instance, as they are the only two people I’ve seen in many debates who actually beat Craig. I don’t like some of Hitch’s tactics, but I like the guy in general and do not wish to see him embarrassed. I am not joking at all when I say that he will belly-flop resoundingly if he comes ill-prepared.

And as for good material on the atheistic side, pick up “Improbability of God” or “The Empty Tomb” (both various authors) from Amazon. Richard Carrier’s “Sense and Goodness Without God” is a philosophical guidebook that can establish a reasonable philosophy behind the rampant so-called “scientism” today. For the theistic side (and yes, all skeptics ought to at least familiarize themselves!), get “Reasonable Faith” by Craig for the best overview of the arguments, and “Debating Calvinism” by Dave Hunt/James White for an introduction-by-proxy to the depth of the two prominent opposing Christian worldviews today. For good overviews from authors with whom you can easily interact, try “Why I Became an Atheist” by John Loftus, opposed by “The Impossible Faith” by his (equally famous) opponent J.P. Holding, both of whom I’m proud to call feisty (but helpful!) friends. Oh, and YouTube the Greg Bahnsen/Gordon Stein debate I mentioned above before you run headlong into the “Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence” – if you’re an internet atheist, and you don’t know what this means, believe me … you will eventually!

Every nonbeliever, by the way, should read the Bible and understand exegesis and Christian interpretation. Reusing old canards will get you nothing but disrespect, and coming unprepared and angry will get you nowhere. If this is your approach, take up gardening and stay far away from the subject. Nobody should engage in controversial study if he is not willing to at least learn what the “other side” thinks.

Finally, keep away from the Christ Myth and all of its various forms. They are weak, loosely linked, and very obviously designed to do nothing but provide the frothing atheist with nothing but a “Ha! Ha! Your beloved Jesus didn’t even exist!” nose-thumbing type of argument. It’s horrible, it’s invalid, Jesus existed in history (read Bart Ehrman’s chapter on this subject in “Jesus: Interrupted”), so get over it.

• You are a member of the Debunking Christianity blog team. Have you thought more critically about your rejection of Christianity since reading Ray’s book? Would you say you are more open to religion now?

I am not “open to religion” specifically – rather, to be intellectually honest, I am open to facts, and if that necessitates the existence of God, or even of the YHWH of Christianity, so be it. I’ll act accordingly; what is true comes first, and how I act proceeds.

My friend John (DC’s site owner) knows I differ from him on the “Debunking” standpoint, and yet has kindly provided me a platform to critically explore – I come from more of a “discussion” approach, and the only Christianity I wish to debunk out of existence is the Fred Phelps type and those advocating the top-down approach to theonomy and dominionism. My main beefs with Christianity aren’t even religious – they’re political (see: evolution and creationism in schools), and one thing I’ve learned in my studies of the religion is that a good Christian does not have to be a good Republican, as well; in fact, many Christians – including fundamentalists! – vehemently are *not.*

That’s about all I have in response to your thought-provoking questions. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my position on Ray and with this whole ordeal, and to let me stand on my own streetcorner for awhile and preach a little at your blog. All comments and criticisms are welcome, but as my parting message to all the New Atheists, don’t engage in polemics when talking to a Christian who is attempting to be rational and is doing the favor of leaving politics out of the discussion. Return the favor and listen to the response, or just take up a new hobby or something. To echo the misquote attributed to Joe Friday, “just the facts, ma’am.”

Possibly Related Posts:

• Jesus Week
• Questions Atheists CAN Answer
• A Fundamentalist Christian Answers The Atheist Thirteen
• The Children of the New BHA Billboards Are Not ‘Christian’
• Church of the Smashing Orangey Bit Responds to Atheist & Christian Billboards

The first show will cover the topics of atheist rationality and tolerance, the “inherent” evil of religion, and religious child abuse. It might be prudent to note here that David’s book is very well written and I agree with a lot of his points he makes against Dawkins’ arguments. I think the whole tolerance issue comes down to the difference of opinion that both theists and atheists have. I don’t think a general rule can be made that separates theists from atheists in terms of tolerance; it all depends on your outlook. I agree though that there isn’t an “inherent” evil in religion, but rather I would consider some aspects of religion evil, and the way people twist and use religion as ammunition of hate is one of them. The issue of religious child abuse seems to have been entirely lost in David’s book, as he seems to think that simply labelling a child as a “Christian child” is what Dawkins (and atheists) would refer to as child abuse. What I believe, and what I suspect Dawkins also meant, is that not explaining different worldviews and beliefs to a child and simply telling them “this is how it is” would count as child abuse. It is what I saw when watching a recent BBC documentary.

The second show will cover godless morality, the immoral Bible, and the cruel Old Testament God. This is where I will probably concede some ground, as I haven’t got the 25 years of Biblical study that David claims in his book. I can handle morality fine; I think there are perfectly naturalistic explanations for it and the fact that morality changes over time is evidence that there is no “absolute” moral code that people live by. This would lead me onto the morality of the Bible, which as David explains, must be read in historical context. In this sense, he destroys his argument for Biblical morality, as he has to concede that interpretation of the Bible changes over time, and what was considered moral back when we burnt “witches” would not be considered moral now, even though the words are still there. The issue of the cruel Old Testament God is also down to interpretation. I interpret the Genesis story as cruel, seeing that God supposedly created our curiosity and then sees fit to punish us for it, as well as seemingly setting up the whole thing to fail (as Ricki Gervais says “Either don’t have the snake or the tree…it’s an accident waiting to happen!”). David says he finds incredible beauty and compassion in the Old Testament though, and I’ll have to ask him a few questions to get his view.

The shows are all about discussion rather than debate, and I will try to keep everything as light and friendly as possible, because I respect the book David has written, and I think his opinions need some careful consideration. David is obviously a very intelligent man, and I hope that we can both go away from the discussion a bit more educated in each other’s philosophy and outlook.

Finally, thanks to everyone who has wished me well on Twitter and on the blog. Your comments are most appreciated.

Possibly Related Posts:

• The Children of the New BHA Billboards Are Not ‘Christian’
• Church of the Smashing Orangey Bit Responds to Atheist & Christian Billboards
• What Would it Take for You to Believe in God?
• Damn You FOX!
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Interview with Darrin Rasberry

1. The myth of Higher Consciousness
2. The myth of Godless beauty
3. The myth of atheist rationality and tolerance
4. The myth of the cruel old testament god
5. The myth of the science/religion conflict
6. The myth of the created god and the uncreated universe
7. The myth of the inherent evil of religion
8. The myth of godless morality
9. The myth of the immoral bible
10. The myth of religious child abuse.

Of course having not read the book I’m unsure of what the arguments for all those are, but I’m being sent a copy to read before the discussion, and I’m told I’ll be able to influence the decision over which ones we talk about, which is always good. After all, just by reading the topics I’m not sure I would argue against some of them; the “inherent evil of religion” for example; I don’t think all religions are “inherently” evil, I just think most of them do more evil than good. The “science / religion” conflict I could speak reams on however.
It’s not a live show though, so that at least gives me less to worry about and more time to concentrate on having a good discussion, raising all the important points.

The people organising the discussion say it will probably air on Saturday 28th March at 2:30pm, and will be available digitally in London on DAB radio, or 1305, 1332, 1413 MW. You can also listen throughout the UK on Sky Digital 0123, Virgin Media 968, and Freeview 725. Those of you who are lucky enough not to live in the UK can listen to it live online at http://www.premier.org.uk/, or they can get the podcast form  http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable.

Right now I’m slightly nervous, mainly because I’ve never actually been on radio before, let alone been invited to a one-on-one discussion/debate! It’s really quite exciting when I sit down to think about it for a bit, I just hope David Robertson’s book is an interesting read and not just repeated arguments. I want a challenge for once!

Possibly Related Posts:

• Christian Radio Recording Today!
• Intelligence Squared to be Broadcast Live!
• Intelligence Squared – Is Atheism the New Fundamentalism?
• Ray Comfort is Still a Coward…
• Ray Comfort is a Coward

In The Atheist’s Way by Eric Maisel demonstrates that atheism is not a denial of the world or of gods, but instead leads away from self to a more active participation in society but without a directive from some higher force. Maisel explodes the myth that life has any inherent meaning to seek, demonstrating that meaning is a decision and that until we decide what is meaningful, nothing is. He makes the case that the paradigm shift from seeking meaning to making meaning is this century’s most pressing intellectual goal. The Atheist’s Way is the first book to describe the beauty, power, and righteousness of personal meaning and to provide both nonbelievers and believers with an atheist blueprint for living.

According to Maisel, the atheist’s way is not humanism, not existentialism, not spirituality, and not psychology but a path that embraces aspects of all those approaches to life. Unlike recent bestsellers about atheism, this book doesn’t rail against religion and believers. Instead, it announces that an indifferent universe need not deter humans from creating lives of value and integrity that are at once sustainable, rich, and real.

Drawing on the freethinking traditions, contemporary psychology and the life sciences, Maisel presents a logical and practical program for the person looking for a compelling answer to the question, “How should I construe the purpose of my life?”

At a time when people are burdened by the feeling that they and their efforts don’t matter, Maisel offers a picture of the universe and of a purposeful life that floundering unbelievers and wavering believers can wholeheartedly embrace.

It also seems to have generated a lot of praise, from both authors and the blogging community:

“Eric Maisel has given us a lovely, thoughtful book about belief outside of the narrow confines of organized religion. The Atheist’s Way offers an uplifting positive answer for anyone interested in how to live life without gods, superstitions or fairytales. For atheists it is a must read; believers should read it as well, so that we can get beyond the divisiveness of belief versus non-belief.” — Nica Lalli, author of Nothing: Something to Believe In

“I find Eric Maisel’s writings more witty than Hitchens, more polished and articulate than Harris, and more informative and entertaining than Dawkins. A 5-star read from cover to cover! My only complaint is that Maisel is going to leave the rest of us atheist authors in the dust.” — David Mills, author of Atheist Universe

“Eric Maisel elevates the tag ‘atheist’ from a mere denial of the supernatural to a calling: a calling to a high-hearted life of diligence, creativity, and ruthless honesty in maintaining one’s integrity in the face of uncaring nature.” — David Cortes,  Secular Wholeness

“With this book, Eric Maisel does what none of the New Atheists have succeeded at doing: elaborating what atheists do believe. Maisel invites religious believers to live life as an atheist would, opening their eyes to worlds a religious outlook cannot see.  For people who can’t even imagine a Godless outlook, I would gladly hand them this book and say, ‘Read this and you’ll know what goes through my mind every day.’ This is a guidebook for brand-new atheists and for anyone wanting to learn how an atheist
thinks.” — Hemant Mehta, I Sold My Soul on eBay

“In The Atheist’s Way, Eric Maisel takes a giant leap beyond where the New Atheist authors have gone before. Instead of simply criticizing religion or demolishing arguments for the existence of God, Maisel covers new territory and provides a foundation for making meaning and living purposefully without supernatural intervention. A book to be relished by atheists, skeptics, humanists, freethinkers, and unbelievers everywhere.” — Donna Druchunas, Skepchick.org

“Unlike many other books on atheism which deal with the question of God’s existence, The Atheist’s Way attempts to answer a different question: So you don’t believe, now what? How do you bravely face the world as it is and create meaning for yourself without the crutch of a divine benefactor? Eric Maisel’s wise suggestions, musings, and insights are a wonderful resource for your quest.” — John Allen Paulos, author of Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why The Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up

I’m attempting to organise an interview with Dr Maisel, so if you have any questions you want to ask him about his work, or about the book, please leave them in the comments or send them to me via my contact form.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Carnival of the Godless #124
• Imaginary Friend – An Atheist Thriller
• Postponing Carl Sagan
• Busy Busy Busy
• Book Club Vote – September 2008

1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 56.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the next seven sentences in your journal along with these instructions.
5. Don’t dig for your favorite book, the cool book, or the intellectual one: pick the CLOSEST.

The closest book to me was one just perched off the end of my bookcase: The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy by Douglas Adams. It was quite literally the closest piece of literature to me in my room, and it also just happened to be my favourite book (so I luckily avoid #5).

What happens next is strangely ironic given the content of this blog. I opened the book to page 56, and was greeted with the popular argument against God (the one about the Babel fish). The next 7 sentences read:

`”Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

`”Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

`Most leading theologians claim this argument is a load of dingo’s kidneys, but that didn’t stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.

`Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.`

Arthur let out a low groan. He was horrified to discover that the kick through hyperspace hadn’t killed him. He was now six light-years from the place that the Earth would have been if it still existed.

Now I realise I’ve already tagged some people this week in an earlier meme, so I’m going to tag absolutely everyone who reads this post. If you are reading this and you own a blog, it is now your internet duty to carry the meme torch that little bit further.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Things I’ve Done Meme
• “On the Origin of Species” Turns 150
• The Atheist Alphabet Meme
• Going on Christian Radio
• I Have A Life! (Just)

Franklin Whitestone, a lawyer in Columbus, Ohio, is trapped in the rubble of the Ohio State football stadium when a Muslim terrorist sets off a bomb. During the rescue Franklin becomes a hero by holding onto a girder while allowing over 50 people to escape. This is  captured on television, and is the one bright spot in the what becomes known as  “9/11 Two.”  Franklin is flown to New York City for an appearance on the Jimmy Ball Show (the equivalent to the Larry King program). Accompanying him to NYC is his significant other, Kelly Keyfold, and since the two of them are the guests of the tv show, they dine at a fancy restaurant where Kelly insists on a bottle of wine, telling Franklin it would be good for his nerves to have one glass himself. He does this, but at some point during the meal a  waiter refills his goblet, and so he drinks two glasses of wine. At the studio, Franklin is shown into the green room, where the first guest on the Jimmy Ball Show, a rummy comedian, offers him a drink from a flask. Franklin at first refuses, but, unused to national tv and shaken to his very core, he finally takes another sip. Of course, this proves unwise.

When Franklin goes on the air, the video clip of his heroics is shown and applauded, and then he and the host answer call-in questions from the live audience. One of the callers is a woman from Salt Lake City, and she asks him whether he was praying to God to give him strength during his heroics, and—his judgment clouded by alcohol—Franklin blithely says no. “God,” he tells her, “was not the solution, but the problem—belief in him is what caused the bombs to go off.” This sparks outraged calls from other viewers, and Franklin
makes some other ill-considered statements along this same unfortunate line. When asked by the host if he is an atheist, Franklin replies:

“Let me put it like this, Jimmy. When I was a child I had an imaginary friend who was with me everywhere I went, helping me out, very real to me. I loved him with all my heart. But as I got older I didn’t need that crutch anymore, and one day he just wasn’t there, nor did I miss him. As an adult I’d be embarrassed if I still needed an imaginary friend to help me run my life.”

Of course, saying this is a mistake of major magnitude, as is made clear to Franklin when his life blows up on many fronts, starting minutes after he’s off the air.

The book has much to say about theism versus atheism, and the role of each in today’s society (I am a lifelong professional teacher and this is a subject about which I am passionate). But the novel is much more than that. There is quite a bit of humor in it, as well as a number of action sequences (and some violent encounters). I would hope that anyone picking up the book would find it an entertaining read.

The book can be ordered from Amazon.com ($15.00).

Finally, let me add that I know this is a delicate and controversial subject, and I have tried to handle it in a way that is fair to all viewpoints. The reader can judge for him/herself whether I have succeeded or whether to join the crowd gathering tar and feathers. I would love to hear any and all comments readers have about the  book, and my email address for making them is in the “Author’s Note” at the end of the novel.

Douglas Whaley

Possibly Related Posts:

• The Atheist Blogger Book Club
• The $64,000 Headache?
• The Pledge of Allegiance
• Church of the Smashing Orangey Bit Responds to Atheist & Christian Billboards
• Carnival of the Godless #114

For this month, the book is “Biblical Nonsense” and we are abandoning the live discussion due to lack of interest. At the end of the month, a forum discussion will be put up where people can post their views. I hope one day to bring back the live discussion, but I think we need more dedicated members for that.

For now, the live discussion will be reserved for books in which I can contact the author.

UPDATE: Guy P. Harrison says he would love to do a live discussion of his book. We will confirm a date nearer the time.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Book Club Vote – October 2008
• Postponing Carl Sagan
• Busy Busy Busy
• Book Club Vote – September 2008
• Freedom Evolves But I Messed The Discussion Up

So the discussion for this book will simply take place over in the forums.

We need to start choosing a book for October.

Do not vote unless you wish to read the book or take part in the discussion!

I’d also like to know who out of my readership is interested in the book club, so please make a comment if you think you’ll be able to subscribe to it regularly. I’d also love some feedback on it.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Some Changes To The Book Club Procedure…
• 50 Reasons People Give For Believing In A God By Guy P. Harrison
• Postponing Carl Sagan
• Busy Busy Busy
• Book Club Vote – September 2008