The Good Books?

I wonder sometimes; I do not know what to make of the New Atheists sometimes and sometimes I think that they do not know what to make of themselves.

Are they the Four Horsemen or the Four My Little Ponies?

Are they bold confronters of religious fanatics or do they prefer taking pop-shots at the Pope, Jerry Falwell, the Bishop of Canterbury and Pat Robertson?

Are they campaigning to convert the ignorant religious or merely encouraging the naturally rebellious and hormonal youth to act out, and act up?


Well, the evidence that Atheism is Dead has amassed always points towards the latter.

I simply wanted to point out just how highly these personages think of themselves.

Richard Dawkins wrote that Sam Harris’ book, The End of Faith,
is one of those books that deserves to replace the Gideon Bible in every hotel room in the land.

Of The God Delusion Bill Maher stated,
hopefully, someday, it’ll be by the bed in every hotel in America.

Delusion indeed.

Of his own book Letter to a Christian Nation Sam Harris stated,
It’s a book that a person could simply hand to a member of the religious Right and say, “What’s your answer to this?”

Just like a tract.
Well, I suppose that I would say, “My answer to this is that you have a lot of studying to do.”

In the preface to The God Delusion Richard Dawkins wrote,
If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.

Apparently, this very funny book did not work as he intended.

Lucrative? Yes indeed. Converting fueling the fires of unbelief? Yes indeed. Historically, logically, theologically, scientifically accurate? No indeed. Worthy of ubiquitous hotel room distribution? Perhaps in the latrine.


  1. Maraino wrote:
    >Are they [New Atheists] bold confronters of religious fanatics or do they prefer taking pop-shots at the Pope, Jerry Falwell, the Bishop of Canterbury and Pat Robertson?

    Hey, Mariano, I *like* the Pope.

    I happened to be visiting family members who are Catholics during the Conclave, so we were all following the events. I made quite clear that Ratzinger was my own choice among the viable candidates (given that they were unlikely to choose Richard Dawkins or Richard Carrier – by the way, you are sadly neglecting Carrier, who is a rather significant “New Atheist”).

    Benny XVI is in many ways a good man – a true lover of peace, and pretty intelligent and well-read as Christians go.

    And, I have never hated even Falwell or Robertson, though they did say so many silly things, it was awfully hard to resist making fun of them.

    Now, the ArchBis. of Canterbury? Isn’t he rather a leftist? Leftist churchmen do rather irritate me.


  2. Dawkins, Harris, all of them, simply confess their ignorance of how the human brain can possibly understand time before time, how something came from nothing, or how there can be no end, no outer limit, to the universe, or universes. The human brain is not up to the task. So, why should we, by default, insert the existence of a personal god as the answer? It makes no sense. No caring, engaged, personal God would have permitted what humans have done and continue to do to one another. God, by default, is not the answer.