- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
In The Truth Behind the New Atheism, author David Marshall examines the ...
In The Truth Behind the New Atheism, author David Marshall examines the wrong concepts of God that are being promoted today. Among the questions he deals with are...
Is the God of the Bible a cruel savage?
Has science refuted the Christian faith?
Has the Bible hurt the human race?
Is the Christian life based on nothing more than blind faith?
As he refutes the critics, Marshall offers powerful arguments in defense of Christianity-arguments that will enable readers to respond to this new confusion with great confidence and biblical accuracy.
Posted December 27, 2008
I've read this book twice but my opinions have not changed much after the second reading. The writing wasn't the best; oftentimes the author would go off track and talk about something seemingly unrelated to the subject at hand. My biggest problem with the book was the extremely poor arguments used. There were way too many appeals to authority; which don't really prove anything unless you provide evidence along with an experts' opinion, but Marshall didn't even bother to do this. Marshall's main target in his book is Richard Dawkins, who is oftentimes completely misrepresented in the book. Marshall accuses Dawkins of saying how Dawkins thinks that James Dobson wishes to take kids away from their parents, and that Dawkins wishes for children not to be taught religion by their parents. These claims are completely false, among others, as I prove in my review of this book on my blog called Arizona Atheist. <BR/><BR/>Marshall's other claims that atheism is responsible for the Nazi and communist regimes is also false, as well as many of his claims about the bible. Being the apologist that he is, you'd think he would know more about what is in his bible but that didn't seem to be the case when you read his book. While reading, it didn't seem that Marshall understood some of the arguments that have been presented by the "new atheists." For example, seemed unable to understand the idea of an evolutionary origin to morals. It's clear when reading the book he didn't do the research needed to understand such a complex topic. <BR/><BR/>Overall, this book, despite it being hailed as "providing substantial answers to hard questions," as the back of the book says, "about God and science," this book fails horribly. It also fails because, while the author does point out a few minor errors of the "new atheists," Marshall makes gaping errors with most of his own arguments, and doesn't come close to dismantling any of the main claims of the "new atheists."
6 out of 7 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 21, 2012
A very insightful read - for the open-minded.
Dawkins does in fact propose that it is cruel “child-abuse” (see even atheist websites) to teach a child that there is such a thing as a “God“ or concepts of “good” or “evil” . Dawkins' claim is disproved by many medical studies show that the general health and optimism of children attending scripture classes is far greater than for children with no religious input. Many Atheists claim that only atheism should be the new norm and NO other beliefs should be allowed to be taught to children. This in fact contradicts the study by the World Health Organisation which found predominately Catholic Countries have an average suicide rate of 4.3 per 100,000 while in countries eg., “the former Soviet Union have the highest rates of suicide with an average of 31.1 suicides per 100,000 people“.
So the claims of Dawkins can be dismissed outright as nonsense.
A simple test of whether the likes of Stalin or Hitler could ever qualify as Christians ( as many atheists insist):
Did either Stalin or Hitler promote the following as conditional to being a Christian?
a) Promote following the teachings of Christ - to “love one another”?
NO - instead they promoted suspicion, hatred, violence against anyone who opposed them (= disqualified)
b) To “forgive one another”; to “make peace with your brother”?
- and what about: “yes love even your enemy”; “do good even to them who hate you”?
NO - instead violating all human rights; invasions of other countries; conducting mass murder on an unprecedented scale in history. (= disqualified).
c) Promote regarding every human being as an equal before God?
NO - Hitler regarded some people as “vermin” (= disqualified); He looked down on others as lesser than himself (mortal sin). He and Stalin had one law for themselves; quite another for “others”. In fact Hitler and Stalin wanted to murder/eradicate such human beings (= disqualified).
d) Did any of the likes of Hitler and Stalin promote generosity in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, assisting the poor and the homeless, etc. etc.?
NO - instead they regarded these people as “dispensable” - indeed they proceeded to exterminate them / imprison them as slave labour (concentration camps, the Gulags, etc.) (= disqualified).
e) Did the likes of Hitler or Stalin ever promote the teaching that you cannot enter Heaven with anger/hatred in your heart and if you fail to have qualities of true humanity and compassion etc.
NO - instead neither of them believed in any God, or“gods” (except in Hitler’s case - he promoted the re-introduction of the mythology of the of Ayrian Germanic “gods” of their past and "racial superiority") (= disqualified).
Hitler was an avid fan of F. Nietzsche (Atheist) and J.Gobbles (Atheist) and Minister of Propaganda who said: "The Fuhrer … is completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so…”
Stalin openly rejected any idea of Christianity, calling it “pathetic”. Both Hitler and Stalin regarded brutality as part of life. Brutality, murder was all acceptable to them in their quest for power. They both were living proof that “without God, everything is permissible” and then inevitable (Dostoyevsky).
Jewish Historian Max I. Dimont, explains: “The fact is - that official Nazi works taught BOTH anti-Semitic AND anti-Christian doctrines: “If one believes the anti-Semitic, one should also believe the anti-Christian, for both had a single purpose. Hitler’s aim was to eradicate all religious organizations within the state and to foster a return to paganism” (Max Dimont, 1994, p. 397).
So, History shows Hitler and Stalin to have completely rejected any of the teachings of Chris (Hitler doing so openly after 1937). They were clearly not followers of Christ (they disqualified themselves in thousands of area) - therefore they were not Christians.
Dawkins tells us he does not believe in the concepts of “good” or “evil”- so he disqualifies himself from prescribing any moral concepts. So for Dawkins (using his own logic) it is not then possible to argue that Stalin and Hitler were “evil” - Dawkins can only judge them as “different” but as still quite consistent with their concept of atheism.
0 out of 6 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.