Originally Posted by MontyB
On the whole I find his arguments rather weak and his logic flawed. You can not use some historical fact in other parts of the Bible to conclude the Bible describes real events therefore my translation is correct, this is simply circular logic based on a faulty assumption.
Further to this his take on atheism is at best a stereotypical one and at worst only accurate of uneducated atheists which I notice he got through without referencing any "known" atheists, I can't think of a single quotable atheists that regards Darwin as a source of knowledge because even they realise that Darwinism does not disprove God it only disproves religious literalism.
Basically it is a good example of how to make money by saying nothing at all and that any one can fill a couple of hundred pages if they pack the book with irrelevant tangents.
I had planned to stay out of this discussion as they usually turn irrational and in the hope topic would simply go unnoticed, but I have to give you a sincere "Indeed!".
P.S.: (no time atm except for a quick summary of my take, but ppl who are impressed by his arguments maybe would want to research what the symbols, names, etc in the bible mean, who introduced them when, and where they come from, you will realize they were - more or less in the same form - used for the past 3-5000 years by many religions). R.