Pg 17--He argues that Christians say that a "moral" act is equivalent to a "Chrisitan" act. He then concludes, "The logical problem posed by these definitions, however, is that non-Christians...must necessarily be perceived as unethical--or at least less ethical--when compare to "true" Christians, simply because they hold differing religious beliefs." Well this is absolutely absurd, not what we believe, and it doesn't logically follow. Even if we equated a moral act with a Christian act we never say that non-Christians cannot do moral/Chrisitan acts. Therefore, his argument doesn't follow and is a straw man.
Pg 17--He also argues that since Christian's claim their beliefs are absolutely and positively true then it leads to "religious bigotry and prejudice--and to Holy War." Well does David Mills not understand he is claiming what he believes is absolutely and positively right? Does that mean that an atheistic belief also leads to bigotry and prejudice against Christians? Will his belief lead to an un-Holy War? The sword cuts both ways. Furthermore, claiming that your belief is absolutely correcy doesn't necessarily lead to war.
Pgs 19-20--I really don't know what he was doing here. Let me explain. He went on a two page rant against people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter so that he could criticize Christianity. I have no clue how they political activist represent Christianity in any fashion. That would be like me attacking a buddhist priest to critique atheism.
Pg 20--This part was great. He complained of the ad hominem attacks when he wrote his book. This is laughable because he just spent 2-3 pages attacking people (ad hominem) so that he could attack the validity of Christianity!!! Hello Pot my name is Kettle
Pg 28--He gives the lame argument "I don't believe in the Biblical God just like I don't believe in the Greek gods...because there is no evidence." This would be a justifiable position if we were to put on a blindfold. That is, I don't believe in Zeus for the same reason he doesnt...no objective evidence. BUT I do believe in the Biblical God because of the plethora of evidence that points to His existence. Therefore, this is another straw-man. Instead of dealing with the evidence he claims there is none. This is like a lawyer who defends their client by constantly arguing that the prosecution has presented zero evidence against the defendent when all the while there is 50 pieces of evidence sitting on the courtroom table.
Pg 29--He claims the burden of proof is on the Christian to prove there is a god because the atheist "lacks belief". This is a pseudo-definition of "atheism" (see my previous blog post here).
We are only on the first 30 pages of the book and this guy is full or nonsense. Aren't you looking forward to the next week of blog posts?!?!