For about two decades, John W. Loftus was a devout evangelical Christian, an ordained minister of the Church of Christ, and an ardent apologist for Christianity. With three degrees - in philosophy, theology, and philosophy of religion - he was adept at using rational argumentation to defend the faith. But over the years, doubts about the credibility of key Christian tenets began to creep into his thinking. By the late 1990s, he experienced a full-blown crisis of faith.
In this honest appraisal of his journey from believer to atheist, the author carefully explains the experiences and the reasoning process that led him to reject religious belief. The original edition of this book was published in 2006 and reissued in 2008. Since that time, Loftus has received a good deal of critical feedback from Christians and skeptics alike. In this revised and expanded edition, the author addresses criticisms of the original, adds new argumentation and references, and refines his presentation. For every issue, he succinctly summarizes the various points of view and provides references for further analyzation. In conclusion, he describes the implications of life without belief in God - some liberating, some sobering.
This frank critique of Christian belief from a former insider will interest freethinkers as well as anyone with doubts about the claims of religion.
©2012 John W. Loftus (P)2015 Pitchstone Publishing
l'enfer c'est les autres
I really didn't find this book very edifying. I don't think I came across anything that I didn't already know. My rule of thumb, if you're going to write a 30 plus hour book, tell me things I don't already know. The bible was created by man, it has really weird stuff in it, superstition is superstition no matter when, a God that punishes his Son for the sin that a talking snake tricked a man into, and Zombies roaming Jerusalem it's all too impossible to believe. But, the one thing I don't want to have to do is listen to hours of Bible quotes and using the myth believers' sources in order to refute the myth believers. I just refute it by ignoring a special pleading by anyone who thinks their Book is special and offer no proof for that whatsoever.
I just recently read Spinoza's "Tractatus" (it's available for free at LibriVox). One of the arguments this author (Loftus) made against Christianity is that Jesus invokes Beelzebub (the devil) in his argument against the Pharisees when they claim that Jesus is in league with the devil, and Jesus responds "that he can't be of the devil since a house can't stand divided against itself". Spinoza makes the point that those critics who claim that Jesus is accepting the reality of the devil miss the point of the argument. Jesus is only giving a proof by contradiction (or as this author, Loftus, says brilliantly earlier in the book, "opposites can't happen"). Look Spinoza made that point 350 years earlier can't Loftus at least acknowledge that in his discussion.
I really hate wasting my time in inside baseball or in this case inside Bible discussion points. All one has to do is listen to a clever Jesuit (who actually I love listening to) or a clever Orthodox Rabbi to know that if you assume their starting points you won't be able to win the arguments on points. It's books like this one that enable Jehovah Witnesses to argue their absurd points and to win converts.
I want to clarify. This book is not horrible, but it's really using the wrong approach to defend atheism (in my opinion). There is actually almost no science in this book whatsoever. I only mention that because the one book that liberated me from religious thought more than any other was "The 4% Universe". It opened my mind and led to hundreds of other science books and than ultimately philosophy and theology books. (I would recommend learn the science before delving into religion).
Logic can only take you so far. I'll give an example outside of the scope of this book, but relevant to why I didn't like this book. Quantum physics is characterized most succinctly by three statements, 1) at the most fundamental level particles are characterized as waves and particles simultaneously (wave particle duality), 2) cause and effect break down at the quantum level (that darn cat!), and 3) superposition (particles are everywhere and no where at the same time). Each of these are fundamental violations of one of the three rules of logic but we still accept quantum physics to be true. Logical inconsistency by itself is not enough to throw out all of physics (nor should it be). The author is trying to show that logical inconsistency by itself is enough to throw out a Christians worldview, but, perhaps all ontological foundations lead to contradictions.
The one book that's mentioned more often by the books I read than any other except for the Bible is Galileo's "Dialogs Concerning Two Chief World Systems". I just recently read it and it seems to me that most of the authors who cite it (including this author) did not read it with as much diligence as I did. They seem to not really understand it and I would recommend any one should read it and not rely on misleading summaries. The author quotes Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" which I've just recently listened to through audible. Kant does a much more effected job at defending atheism by his antinomies than this book does. In the end, Kant appeals to the moral within man for his proof of God's existence. Look, authors of Atheism books, expect your listeners to have read the books you are citing, because some of us really, really want to understand. Give us something worth knowing beyond the superficial distractions that fill most of what permeates the easily accessible media or popular books!
Overall, I would recommend Bart Ehrman's many fine but detailed lectures or books on many of the topics which were not covered nearly as well in this book. I don't really dislike this author and he probably wrote a decent book for somebody who cares about inside Bible arguments, but in the future I hope the author learns it's okay to teach us things that are complicated and not to be afraid to talk above us. I want to learn, and the Bible offers me almost nothing (I really enjoy Ecclesiastes and therefore it can teach me something more than nothing).
I really enjoyed listening to, "Why I Became an Atheist". It is a well reasoned and constructed treatise about the intellectual journey of a dedicated Christian to the realization that there is no way any of this makes sense. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Loftus for what must have been a difficult, soul-wrenching quest.
The reader, Buzz Kemper, goes back and forth referring to the ultimate book in the Bible "Revelation" and Revelations". The book is entitled, "The Book of Revelation", or often known simply as "Revelation" or "The Apocalypse of John". Also, when referring to numbered books, he'll say, "2 Corinthians" instead of "Second Corinthians". I know the book is usually written as 2 Corinthians, but when we say it, we say Second Corinthians or Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
There are some other grammatical constructions that I find annoying, like saying, "the reason ... is BECAUSE ..." instead of, "the reason ... is THAT...". However, this was a very enjoyable book. I highly recommend it.
I really don't understand why authors don't take more time choosing a narrator, this one is so boring with almost monotone range of voice. Makes it so hard, you have to concentrate since it is very droning. I think I'm only going with the author as narrator from now on..
AUTHOR! Or a narrator with a lot more personality and vocal range; this one is like a rap singer with about a 4 note range..
choose narrator better, I may return this due to being so laborious to listen to
it is good to know that you are not the only one who has noticed the discordant nature of Christianity with over 33,000 denominations, all claiming to be right while questioning the validity of all the remaining groups.
Not to mention the contradictions and serious unanswered questions that are uncovered when objectively studying the "Holy" bible.
I liked the audio version but the print would probably be better. the author uses many quotes and with the audio book it becomes difficult to keep up with whether he is quoting or providing his own content. There is a ton of information provided which will keep you entertained.
The text of the book and the arguments presented are sound. A great book.
I enjoyed the narrator. There were some issues with editing such as the narrator speaking fast and saying he's running out of breath. There were many times he departed words that were not edited property. There were so many mispronunciations of words that listening became frustrating
There were so many issues with this audiobook that like the book this audio format needs to be revised.
Report Inappropriate Content
If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.