Comment by Morgan Matthew on May 4, 2011 at 2:44pm

Here is the index:With commentary from iconrad:

In sequence:

1. Informationally meaningless. Also highly in danger of running into the "mistaking the map for the territory" fallacy. Truth about reality is, to a limited extent, knowable -- so as a categorical statement ("There exist truths about reality which are knowable") it's allowable.

2. Categorically false. It fails to allow for paradoxical statements which are neither true nor false ("This sentence is false.")

3. a. Did the universe begin? Or is the 0-moment of history a mathematical fiction derived from our 'middle-world' perspective? (See: mathematical asymptotic limits, the behavior of time near the event horizon of a black hole). b. Weak anthropic principle ("No universe incapable of observers will ever be observed."). Mere assertion (Where is the evidence suggesting that our universe's constants are even capable of adjustment? If they are fixed by necessary principles, they certainly cannot be claimed to be a sign of agency.). c. Mere assertion ("I insist that there are moral absolutes"), and Appeal to Consequences ("I do not want it to be true therefore it is untrue.")

4. This does not follow. The Deistic god of Jefferson and Paine explicitly repudiates this notion.

5. Again, does not follow. How do we distinguish noise from signal? What distinguishes the acts of a deceiving Satanic figure from God?

6. The New Testament contradicts itself with its own accounts. And not just in small ways (The year of Jesus's birth, the season of Jesus's birth, etc..). It also contradicts the known record (Seriously? The sun was blotted from the sky for three days? All the dead of an entire city rose up from their graves zombie-style? Earthquakes? Where's the paper trail?) And don't even get me started on the pure fiction of the Hebrew Exodus -- it never happened. (I know, I know; that's OT).

7. I am God. It's on Reddit. Reddit has a good track record with historical authenticity. Therefore I am God. Really???

8. There are countless individuals whom have done these things. And some of them are not merely alive today, but today is a day and age of rigorous scientific endeavor and recording capabilities. Jesus did his shit where it got propagated by word-of-mouth alone. Furthermore -- fucker never wrote anything 'bout himself. So how do we even know what he really did? We've already covered how the NT is contradictory on that shit.

9. No. See 1-8. Furthermore: even IF 1-8 were not rebutted, they STILL do not lead to 9. Nothing listed qualifies as 'evidence of God' -- not when it can point to any of a countless number of things (such as reality being influenced by belief; a prankster alien; the devil masquerading as God; a bard's bad acid trip that got WAY out of hand; etc..)

10. So contradictory statements are true. That's fallacious. No. That which is only A definitionally cannot be simultaneously also not-A.

11. ... No. It simply appears nowhere in the scripture that Jesus claimed the Bible was the Word of God. This is a severe conceptual bastardization on the part of the author; the BIBLE was not the Word of God -- GOD is the Word of God, theologically speaking. This is the theological concept of the Log

Comment by Tianna Vonkeman on May 5, 2011 at 6:01pm

LOL my parents forced me to go to church until I was 18 and when I told one of my church friends I was an Atheist he got me this book lol

Comment by Derek on May 7, 2011 at 7:43am

Number 3 is typical of theistic bullcrap. God exists because of good arguments and not evidence? Wow, just wow.

Comment by Shamari on May 8, 2011 at 12:44am

Oh wow. I've heard of that argument being used before, but I didn't know that there was enough b.s. material to fill a whole book with it. Exactly how does it take more faith to be an atheist? Isn't the whole foundation of his argument contradictory anyway? Faith in religion is a good thing. The more faith one has, the better their god views them (I know it says somewhere in the bible that god cannot be pleased without faith). That's the copout they use for any argument they can't answer to anyway. Faith, believing without any evidence (or in spite of contradictory evidence), is the key to their salvation. He's implying that too much faith is a bad thing, so some evidence must be a good thing. Where's his evidence for his beliefs?

Comment by Colleen Walker on May 8, 2011 at 6:54am

I like how the title of this book is "I Don't Have Enough Faith To  Be An Atheist," yet there is a graphic below the title of a giant vagina, insinuating that all Christians are pussies. That is definitely a vagina.

Comment by Daniel Agnone on May 10, 2011 at 12:15am

I'm sorry, all I can do is uncontrollably laugh at that opening text!

Comment