Blasting The Foundations Of Atheism

In his bold and bigoted quest to ridicule the very idea of "God" and "religion", rendering the whole thing as nothing but a big ancient "delusion", Richard Dawkins delivers what I view to be - in fact - some of the greatest services an atheist has ever done to the cause of truth and the message of tawheed. Even an amateur philosopher like himself should realize that it takes much more to argue against the reliability of innate rationality and natural language, not to mention the mental consistency of all humans ever since the dawn of time (except for atheists in general and Darwinians in particular). Yet, he does not, thinking perhaps that this is all he needs to do to deliver his message to an audience of commoners and laypeople; and this serves me pretty well indeed.In his book "The God Delusion", Dawkins seeks to convince the lay reader that ever since time immemorial, humans have been "fooled" or "deluded" to see "design" where in fact there is not, and to see order and purpose where in fact there is none. He calls his ideological mission an attempt to "raise" people's consciousness to the level where they are finally prepared to embrace such outrageous claims, both intellectually and spiritually. Thus I only find it convenient and justifiable that a book written to serve - among other pertinent ends - as a response to The God Delusion would come out under the title: Blasting the foundations of Atheism. But how does blowing Dawkins' book serve as a means to blast all atheism? Well, I think that if one was to take some time and carefully examine every quasi argument that Dawkins puts forth in his boldly titled book, they would at least offer the reader fair insight into the "psyche" and "rationale" of an atheist, a militant one no less, who claims to have come to a near certainty that God is only a delusion! So if written with care, such an insight would suffice, in my view, to effectively destroy the foundations of all atheism. After all, atheism should be viewed as a psychological condition, and the core thesis of atheism is indeed every bit as ridiculous as what the very title of Dawkins' book demonstrates. Thus I chose to exploit The God Delusion as a perfect instrument for my ends, and for that I am very grateful to Richard Dawkins.Originally, I set out to refute every false or inconsistent claim that Dawkins bothered to advance in his book, and further expand on my arguments against atheistic thought along every quotation that I choose to pick. Naturally, I ended up with a volume little over a thousand pages large. Thus I was advised to split it in two volumes, the first of which would be printed separately, and would suffice to blow at least the two core chapters of Dawkins' book out of the water: chapters three and four.It is my pleasure to present the first of the two volumes of the book Blasting the Foundations of Atheism: its Pseudoscience and Pseudo-reason; a book which is not only addressed to sincere truth seekers worldwide but also to those who are on the verge of atheism

If you don't understand the reason for unbelief, you don't understand the reason for belief. This book is NOT a how-to guide for winning debates with non-believers, or trying to convince atheists there is a God. I spent a decade as an apologist arguing and debating with thousands of unbelievers. I've witnessed hundreds of formal debates between Christians vs atheists, and the one thing that remained unchanged at the end of the day is atheists were still atheists. Nothing changed. Why? There's a reason atheists aren't convinced. It's not because of a lack of evidence for God as they claim. Trying to convince atheists with evidence only presents them with more of what they reject. When a Christian tries to prove God, or rationalize one out of atheism, they do not understand the underlying reason why atheists don't believe. Are atheists asking questions and confronting Christians because they are seeking God? No! Atheists are seeking justification for unbelief. Christians unknowingly give them justification for unbelief by entering The Courtroom of Atheism and answering atheists on their terms. Trying to prove God to one that doesn't believe in God will ultimately give the non-believer justification for unbelief. In this book you'll discover why Christians should never try to prove God to an unbeliever. Doing so demonstrates the Christian disagrees with scripture. You'll also learn the hidden agenda behind the purpose for interrogating Christians. Most importantly, Christians will learn why debating non-believers, and trying to reason with atheists will not bring them to Christ. Far too often people of faith attempt to argue with atheists in hopes to bring them out of atheism only to end up doubting their faith. Why does this happen? If you are curious, this book is for you.

On one side of the argument is a collection of godless academics with doctorates from the finest universities in England, France, and the United States. On the other is Irrational Atheist author Vox Day, armed with nothing more than historical and statistical facts. Presenting a compelling argument (but not for the side one might expect), Day strips away the pseudo-scientific pretentions of New Atheism with his intelligent application of logic, history, military science, political economy, and well-documented research. The arguments of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Michel Onfray are all methodically exposed and discredited as Day provides extensive evidence proving, among other things, that: More than 93 percent of all the wars in human history had no relation to religion The Spanish Inquisition had no jurisdiction over professing Jews, Muslims, or atheists, and executed fewer people on an annual basis than the state of Texas Atheists are 3.84 times more likely to be imprisoned than Christians "Red" state crime is primarily in "blue" counties Sexually abused girls are 55 times more likely to commit suicide than girls raised Catholic In the twentieth century, atheistic regimes killed three times more people in peacetime than those killed in all the wars and individual crimes combined. The Irrational Atheist provides the rational thinker with empirical proof that atheism's claims against religion are unfounded in logic, fact, and science.

In the twenty-first century, religion has come under determined attack from secular progressives in documentaries, opinion pieces and international bestsellers. Combative atheists have denounced faiths of every stripe, resulting in a crude intellectual polarization in which religious convictions and heritage must be rejected or accepted wholesale. In the long unavailable Atheism in Christianity, Ernst Bloch provides a way out from this either/or debate. He examines the origins of Christianity in an attempt to find its social roots, pursuing a detailed study of the Bible and its fascination for 'ordinary and unimportant' people. In the biblical promise of utopia and the scriptures' antagonism to authority, Bloch locates Christianity's appeal to the oppressed. Through a lyrical yet close and nuanced analysis, he explores the tensions within the Bible that promote atheism as a counter to the authoritarian metaphysical theism imposed by clerical exegesis. At the Bible's heart he finds a heretical core and the concealed message that, paradoxically, a good Christian must necessarily be a good atheist. This new edition includes an introduction by Peter Thompson, the Director of the Centre for Enrst Bloch Studies at the University of Sheffield.

When defending the faith, it is not sufficient to merely go after a few surface issues. The real battle goes much deeper. The defender of the historic Christian faith must blast deep into the foundations of the enemy's worldview by exposing and destroying his presuppositions. The battle for truth cannot be won apart from destroying the false presuppositions held by those who reject the gospel.

In my case, reading has always served a dual purpose. In a positive sense, it offers sustenance, enlightenment, the bliss of fascination. In a negative sense, it is a means of withdrawal, of inhabiting a reality quarantined from one that often comes across as painful, alarming or downright distasteful. In the former sense, reading is like food; in the latter, it is like drugs or alcohol. In Autobibliography, Rob Doyle recounts a year spent rereading fifty-two books – from the Dhammapada and Marcus Aurelius, via The Tibetan Book of the Dead and La Rochefoucauld, to Robert Bolaño and Svetlana Alexievich – as well as the memories they trigger and the reverberations they create. It is a record of a year in reading, and of a lifetime of books. Provocative, intelligent and funny, it is a brilliant introduction to a personal canon by one of the most original and exciting writers around. It is a book about books, a book about reading, and a book about a writer. It is an autobibliography.