New and complete: The Difficult Task of Loving Atheists by Vic Zarley

Note: After many conversations with listeners, the author has opted to change the title, description and promo for his book. The contents, however, have not changed.

Vic is on a roll. As is his wont, you can get all the episodes of The Difficult Task of Loving Atheists right now:

In 2006, the author found the newly released Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion at the library. Shaking his head in disbelief that anyone could think there is no God, he felt God impressing him to go through the book, writing what he thought would be a rebuttal, point by point. Both the author and his wife found Dawkins’ words to be full of arrogance, often foolish sounding from the Christian point of view and predictably closed-minded. Yet, the author yearned to understand the mindset of such a man as Dawkins and had a deep burden in his heart for Dawkins’ soul.

This work is a journal of the thoughts and emotions of the author as he endured the painful and frustrating process of toiling through The God Delusion.

Though it was originally meant to be a rebuttal to The God Delusion, the author quickly realized there are brilliant Christian apologists and sharp men and women in Dawkins’ own field who are far more adept at arguing on Dawkins’ level. So the author found himself leaning more toward putting Christian principles into practice as a far better way of reaching atheists. If the book seems contradictory in message, it is because that was often the frame of mind of the author as he went through Dawkins’ book, which he felt was offensive and disrespectful toward Christians. The God Delusion took the author on a roller coaster ride where he was torn between anger at Dawkins’ words and love for his soul. Hence the title, The Difficult Task of Loving Atheists.





38 Responses to “New and complete: The Difficult Task of Loving Atheists by Vic Zarley”

  1. Tweets that mention Podiobooker » Blog Archive » New and complete: Loving Atheists by Vic Zarley -- Topsy.com Says:

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Podiobooks.com, thefarmproject. thefarmproject said: Serialized Audiobk: New and complete: Loving Atheists by Vic Zarley: Vic is on a roll. As is his wont, you can get… http://bit.ly/btYV5H […]

  2. Samantha Says:

    How about you leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone. Sound good?

  3. Z Says:

    All he’s done so far is post a book. Unless you’d care to claim otherwise, I think he’s well within the parameters of peaceful, civil behavior.

  4. Collin Says:

    I think its great your getting your opinion Z, keep at. The only way people can make informed choices is by obtaining different view points. People who believe in god can make their point and so can the people who don’t. Then the person can decide; thats how it should be.

  5. Vic Zarley Says:

    Thank you, folks, for your comments. I appreciate the chance to share my view with those who care to hear it. Samantha, the book is really for Christians. It is actually meant to help the Christian community deal with the unbelievers with more love and less judgment and, hopefully, not be obnoxious.

  6. Brian Says:

    I believe Samantha’s point is that some atheists aren’t particularly interested in having the Christian community “deal” with them.

  7. Joe Says:

    As someone who has read most of the New Atheist books I was interested in hearing a considered rebuttal to Dawkin’s book.

    Sadly, this book doesn’t deliver. The I’ll summarize:

    “These books and people are all wrong. It says so in the Bible. We need to save the world from this evil.”

    Really. That’s it. That’s his point. Then one long rambling diatribe of scripture quotes, pulpit pounding, and occasional praying. I listened to the first two episodes entirely and then skimmed the rest of them looking for anything worth listening to. I sure can’t find it.

    If you already believe that atheists are evil and following the teachings of Christianity is the only path for a meaningful existence, then perhaps you’ll enjoy listening to it as background. Beyond that, save your time.

    Please note: this is a review of the book – not an attack on the author, Christians, or anyone else. Just saving anyone else from downloading it if you are expecting to live up to the expectations created by the author.

  8. Vic Zarley Says:

    Thank you, Joe. I appreciate your opinion but I’m not sure I would summarize the book as you did. Taking your 3 sentence approach, I’d have to say, 1. There is only one truth and these authors have rarely come close to it. 2. The Bible is one book, supernaturally given to mankind that gives us a foundation from which we can build our lives and the atheistic mindset does not acknowledge its truth. 3. Evil is what has happened since mankind fell and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and began judging everyone and everything resulting in the chaos the world is experiencing today and, through the saving power of Jesus Christ, we are able to overcome our own evil from the inside which will spread outwardly, healing not just the atheists, but all of us. Thanks, Vic

  9. Dan Says:

    First off, I’d like to say that I am a Christian. I am confused about what your trying to say, though, Mr. Zarley. In the description to the book, it says that this book is a rebuttal of Richard Dawkins book, “The God Delusion”, but then in the comments above, you tell Samantha that your book is ‘really for Christians.’
    So which is it? How can you have a rebuttal, if you don’t want those who believe what “The God Delusion” says to listen your book?
    If you don’t want any kind of debate, (intelligent or otherwise) then how is this a rebuttal? Perhaps you should change the description to read ‘Christians only’. I just do not believe that these contradictions will help Christians to love atheists, and they sure won’t gain you any love from atheists.

  10. Dan Says:

    Sorry for the double post, my browser wouldn’t let me write more. Furthermore, I do not believe that Joe was trying to offend you. His point was that your only arguement was ‘We’re right, because the bible says so’. Now, in the assumption that Joe was reading your book as a rebuttal, your arguement likely didn’t sound very reasonable. You also say in the description ‘It is time to cease the intellectual arguments and show the doubtful the mighty work of God.’ This is yet another contradiction to the word rebuttal, and to what you told Samantha about your book being meant for Christians only. How do you plan on showing the doubtful the mighty work of God if you don’t want them to listen to your book?
    Sir I hate to break it to you, but your book is a big step back from loving atheists, and, instead of a rebuttal, you seem to be saying ‘We shouldn’t argue with these people anymore, and I don’t want atheist listening.’
    Loving atheists is as simple and difficult as this: Love thy neighbor.

  11. Vic Zarley Says:

    I acknowledge that I do not understand the atheist mind-set. I honestly wanted to try, though, since Dawkins tried to share where he was coming from in The God Delusion. I thought about every sentence he wrote and gave my honest opinion as I was inspired. I did not come at his book with an angry agenda but felt there was a dialogue starting that I wanted to contribute to. There were some glaring biblical misunderstandings that Dawkins readers (who care about such things) might want some feedback on like when Dawkins said “Jesus would turn over in His grave” if He had known that His teachings would go outside his culture and small band of disciples. In my book I share the Good Samaritan story (where He uses someone outside His culture to illustrate who a neighbor is) as well as share Peter’s vision (which broke the unwritten law that the nations–the non-Jews–were to be excluded from Jesus’s teachings).

    My hope is that the dialogue will continue with Loving Atheists here on Podiobooks.com. Ultimately, if non-believers would like to listen to it, the door is open to do so. This book was written mainly to share with those of the faith, though, because what WE need to do is become more Christ-like, more loving, less critical but, at the same time, not compromise our goals to “share the Gospel to the ends of the earth.”

    Why do we “bother” to want to reach the atheists? Because we do not believe that God wants us to isolate ourselves and shrug our shoulders at the rest of mankind. We are not to all crawl into our little holes and live isolated, scrunched up lives. We all belong to each other and to God, and with the proper belief system, can actually learn forgiveness and become more Christ-like as we interact with and pray for one another. God wants us united in Him, and not by force but because agape love, Christ’s love, is the next “supernatural” selection our society needs to make in order to continue “evolving” (if you want to put it that way).

    Can anyone see the logic of the following fact?: If there are many truths, then there is no truth because truth, then, does not mean anything. Many truths dilutes the meaning of truth. It also pulls the rug out from under “order” “intelligence” “life” “logic” and much more. If everything is true, then nothing is.

    From that fact, we can choose what we want to believe but there still is only one truth. The question, then, is are we in alignment with that truth? Or against it?

    Thank you. If, in listening to Loving Atheists, you find yourself getting uncomfortable, at least try to finish the book. If you are strong in your belief system, you should be able to grasp someone else’s (especially if they are trying to grasp yours!)

    Sincerely,
    Vic Zarley

  12. Vic Zarley Says:

    Dan, I think you are right on and admit there appears to be a contradiction in my book. I wonder, now, if it could be doing more harm than good. I do, however, present some rebuttal with Dawkins points throughout my book but I also make a strong case for Christians to pray for the lost, rather than try to win them over by “force” or intellectual argument. (Listen to the Charlie Wireman story).

    If we have to pull the book, due to this inconsistency, I would agree to it. If it somehow stirs us all to reconsider each other’s viewpoint, it might be a good thing, though. Shall we vote?

  13. Paul Says:

    Thank you, Vic, for your reply to Joe’s message. For me, it confirmed that Joe’s summary of your book was accurate. There are real Christians who really love atheists, but they do not make a big deal about it as you do. They just show some respect, as you do not.

  14. Joe Says:

    Vic,

    You are simply reinforcing my point: your “book” does not offer a rebuttal of Dawkins (or anything else). That is the expectation you created in the description. By claiming a rebuttal to a popular title you – either through intentional deception or ignorance – got additional people to download it.

    While I didn’t pay for this work, I did spend my time on it, time I could have spent listening to another author who didn’t use such tactics.

    There is no editing process on Podiobooks. The public is the editor, and the filter through which others evaluate the content. Hence I feel the need to warn others about my experience.

    I’m going to choose to ignore the rest of your comments because using words like “logic”, “rebuttal”, and “facts” doesn’t create an environment for civil discussion unless everyone is open to new ideas.

    Would anything get you to publicly acknowledge that your ideas might be wrong? Is there anything I could say that would get you to state the following:

    “That is a good point. The bible might be a work of fiction created by people, and if so my entire argument collapses and I’m wrong. I still believe it is a supernatural book handed to us by God, but you have a solid argument and I can understand your perspective.”

    If no amount of evidence would convince you to reconsider you position, then we can’t have a discussion. You should not write rebuttal books or attempt to persuade through logic and reason. Of course you’re free to believe whatever you want about the world and I respect your right to that belief.

    Again, my comments are about your ideas and your book, not an attack on you or your beliefs.

  15. Dan Says:

    Vic Zarley, thank you for your response. I do not think you should pull the book, that was not my intention. I apologize if I was harsh. I admit that I haven’t finished your book yet. I have no doubt that you make several good points and counter-points.
    I do believe in the power of prayer, but I also believe that debate and intellectual argument is a good thing, a way to learn from and about each other.
    I also believe that both prayer and debate is the right approach. I find it difficult to spread the Word unless your willing and able to debate.I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on that.
    I do think you should re-write the book description if possible, but that is your decision. As it is now, I find it a little confusing, but maybe thats just me.

  16. Vic Zarley Says:

    Dan, would you send a suggested re-write of the description to me to consider? I would appreciate it as I don’t yet understand where the error is. Thanks, if you have time.

  17. Vic Zarley Says:

    I’m not understanding what “rebuttal” means, then. I read Dawkins book, The God Delusion, and as I was inspired, shared my response to the book…then I wrote Loving Atheists and put my responses to Dawkin’s book in it. There are inumerable references to Dawkin’s book in Loving Atheists and they “rebut” his points. Again, where am I going wrong in my thinking that this book is a rebuttal to The God Delusion?

    With regard to Joe’s comment, it is in ignorance that I used the word rebuttal to Dawkins book. I would not deliberately try to shortchange people or use a “bait and switch” tactic.

    I liked your paragraph, Joe:

    “That is a good point. The bible might be a work of fiction created by people, and if so my entire argument collapses and I’m wrong. I still believe it is a supernatural book handed to us by God, but you have a solid argument and I can understand your perspective.”

    That is a courteous way to speak, and I want to acknowledge that I want to be respectful. Thanks for helping me there. I don’t believe either of us can “prove” that the other is wrong but respect and courtesy is needed and I thank you for sharing that.

  18. Dan Says:

    Vic Zarley, the error is that upon seeing the word rebuttal in the description, people expect to hear a full rebuttal of Dawkins book, and instead of a rebuttal, your book will sound like a sermon to many people.
    You do make some good points in the book, but it still doesn’t come off as a rebuttal. Because of the word ‘rebuttal’ people will listen to it hoping that it will make them rethink their position. Instead, they’ll get a sermon on how Christians should love atheists.
    And the description says that you want to cease the intellectual arguments. My understanding of the word rebuttal means that you want to counter a argument. How can you counter a argument and cease the intellectual arguments at the same time?
    It makes no sense to claim your book as a rebuttal and refuse any arguments or debate at the same time.
    Do you really not understand my views on this?
    This is just my opinion, but I don’t believe that I’m wrong. Its your book, you should do what you believe is right.

  19. Vic Zarley Says:

    You’ll have to pardon me on that idea to cease intellectual discussion. Obviously we are doing that now. To put in in context to the general tone of the book, we Christians need to rely more on knocking on heaven’s door with prayer rather than spending so much time with arguments and counter-arguments. Again, I refer to the Charlie Wireman story to illustrate the point.

    I have been uncomfortable with the double approach of my book and we do have to weigh whether there is any value in it at all considering that I appear to want to cease fighting and pray more as well as have alleged intellectual arguments (fight, if you will). I truly appear to be trying to have it both ways.

    Seriously, if this is too confusing as well as being double-minded, then it needs re-thinking and revision. I think maybe we ought to pull it as not quite ready for prime time. If, as it is, it stimulates thought, then we ought to leave it.

    I love Podiobooks.com and have other projects in the fire that are less controversial and quite fun, actually so my feelings will not be hurt if this one needs to be reconsidered. I do REALLY appreciate people’s input and if management feels this doesn’t live up to their standard, I’m okay with that.

    Again, thanks everyone. I respect you.

  20. Joe Says:

    Vic,

    I appreciate your civility. I don’t think there is much else I can say about the book and I don’t believe this is the venue to get into a debate about belief systems. I have read your responses carefully and it appears that your intentions are genuine.

    The topics you raise are among the most significant of our era. We live in a world divided by competing dogmas with technology amplifying the voice and power of the most radicalized actors in these groups.

    Left unchecked, these forces have the potential to unleash incredible human destruction and suffering. Sometimes this suffering is subtle, such as the harm caused to our children when the education system fails to equip them with basic reasoning facility needed to survive this complex modern world. At other times it is overt, such as mass murder of those who think differently from us.

    There ARE good rebuttals (especially by other Atheists) to the approach advocated by the New Atheists, namely that demonizing believers and taking their most cherished beliefs head-on will not bring us closer towards breaking down the barriers between us.

    Are you interested in helping bring about this type of world, Vic, through your writings? Are you committed to making life better for everyone by creating a civil, open dialogue among people who truly want to understand each other?

    Or are you only interested in trying to convert the world to your belief system?

    I offer that this is the question you need to answer before you think about what to write.

  21. Vic Zarley Says:

    Joe, I just want to clarify something. Though I liked the courteousness of that paragraph, Joe, I would not be able to ever say the Bible was a work of fiction. It is the foundation of my faith. But I still feel that your goal of being courteous is well taken. That paragraph would probably need to go something like this:

    “Though that is a good point, I do not believe the Bible is a work of fiction created only by people, but is divinely inspired. I believe it is a supernatural book handed to us by God, but you are entitled to your perspective and beliefs.”

  22. Vic Zarley Says:

    Thank you, Joe. I deeply appreciate your words, thoughts and spirit. I do think that my description probably doesn’t match the content of my book and am looking into correcting that.

  23. monkeyluis Says:

    I’m a loving atheist. That is all.

  24. Vic Zarley Says:

    Perhaps one of the most divisive things Jesus said clashes heavily with your question, Joe. “..or are you only interested in trying to convert the world to your belief system?”

    Some people try to partially follow Jesus. This has caused the Church to lose much credibility until it is the laughingstock of much of today’s high thinkers. In this chaotic and oppressive world and culture, I’ve chosen to put all my eggs in the Jesus basket.

    According to Jesus, the One who came supernaturally to this world to share His message with us, there are not many ways, but only one way.

    To answer your question, I am committed to making life better for everyone and pray diligently that people understand there is no compromise to the one truth. “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life,” says Jesus. “No one comes unto the Father except through Me.”

    It is not “my” belief system, Joe. It is “the” belief system because, frankly, none that I have experienced personally or observed, works better when the ideals are lived up to.

    Though I will not compromise in my belief or teaching, I truly do want to remain civil and it is in this that dialogue can continue.

    By the way, I certainly appreciated your last note and want to strive toward the “civility” you mentioned.

  25. Vic Zarley Says:

    By the way, there will be a new, more accurate blurb as well as the name change. I do not use the word rebuttal but explain that my process was more a journaling of my thoughts as I read the book. I believe that takes the “fight” out because I am entitled to my own thoughts and others can choose to read them or not. That new blurb will be shortly forthcoming but allow me to share it with you here:

    “In 2006, the author found the newly released Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion at the library. Shaking his head in disbelief that anyone could think there is no God, he felt God impressing him to go through the book, writing what he thought would be a rebuttal, point by point. Both the author and his wife found Dawkins’ words to be full of arrogance, often foolish sounding from the Christian point of view and predictably closed-minded. Yet, the author yearned to understand the mindset of such a man as Dawkins and had a deep burden in his heart for Dawkins’ soul.

    “This work is a journal of the thoughts and emotions of the author as he endured the painful and frustrating process of toiling through The God Delusion.

    “Though it was originally meant to be a rebuttal to The God Delusion, the author now realizes there are brilliant Christian apologists and sharp men and women in Dawkins’ own field who are far more adept at arguing on Dawkins’ level. So the author found himself leaning more toward putting Christian principles into practice as a far better way of reaching atheists. If the book seems contradictory in message, it is because that was often the frame of mind of the author as he went through Dawkins’ book, which he felt was disrespectful toward Christians. The God Delusion took the author on a roller coaster ride where he was torn between anger at Dawkins’ words and love for his soul. Hence the title, The Difficult Task of Loving Atheists.”

    I hope that more accurately explains what the book is. Thank you, everyone.

  26. Brian Says:

    “I acknowledge that I do not understand the atheist mind-set.”
    Perhaps you should have a conversation with one, or more, atheists before writing a book about how to deal with them, then? I’m sure you can find some that would be happy to explain their mindset to you.

  27. Todd Says:

    Dawkins uses the scientific method and asks hard questions about everything. While Dawkins may not have all the answers, per se, the fact that he is using real logic is something Christians don’t seem to fathom.
    Christians tend to just rely on faith in a book written hundreds of years after Jesus’ death with no real means to “prove” anything. Anytime a Christian tries to make a point by mentioning anything in the Bible that is not logic, nor is it proof.
    It’s science versus magic.
    I, for one, am grateful that the field of science has been able to flourish and prove things over the past couple of thousand years (even during the reign of oppressive religious leaders). I’m grateful that the mighty-all-knowing church isn’t the voice of science anymore. I would have loved to be there when the church couldn’t win the argument anymore about the Earth being at the center of the universe, and the other 1000’s of things they had to give up and pretend they never believed it.
    Christianity in the next few hundred years will be looked back upon much like we look back on Greek mythology. The Greeks truly believed in their Gods (some still do), but we dismiss them today as myth.
    Whatever makes you happy though, I suppose. Some people just need to have a happy pill to swallow every day and believe that when they die something magic happens and they get to float around on clouds. If that gets you through your day, fantastic.

  28. Todd Says:

    Oh, and the whole argument about Evolution vs Intelligent Design… it really makes Christians appear as crazy as Tom Cruise and Scientology.
    The argument that “Evolution is a THEORY” (and therefore is not proven) is dumb. Gravity is a theory too. I’m not about to float into space though, so maybe science is onto something.

    Sorry, I’ll stop ranting. It just fires me up in the morning to read this type of stuff. :-)

  29. Vic Zarley Says:

    I like this from http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/375661

    HYPOTHESES are proposed explanations for the causes of phenomena (they are NOT “educated guesses” about what will happen—those are called “predictions”). These explanations must be objective. They must either be testable by experimentation or make predictions that can be tested. They must be open to potential refutation and revision.

    Vic says: I believe evolution is a hypothesis. I am not a scientist but there are plenty of them on the side of creationism to refute evolution.

    THEORIES are hypotheses that have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed (through experiments designed to disprove them) and so well established that new evidence is not likely to contradict them. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is the (very large) degree of confidence we have in its validity and power to explain. When someone says: “It’s only a theory” they are most likely using the word colloquially and not scientifically. Theories are very powerful explanations that have withstood repeated attempts to dispove them. Nevertheless, theories are still proposed explanations, and all the criteria for a scientific hypothesis still apply.

    LAWS are statements that describe invariable behavior of things in the natural world. Laws are like predictions that have been confirmed with such uniformity that their contradiction would seem miraculous until new theories are produced to explain the deviation. Laws are usually very succinct and can often be expressed mathematically. Laws are not proposed explanations like hypotheses and theories, but they must still be objective and open to potential refutation.

  30. Todd Says:

    And why would you believe it’s a hypothesis? That doesn’t even make sense.
    It’s widely accepted that evolution is a theory by most of the scientific community… you know, the folks that would actually know what they are talking about?
    You like to google things… here’s one for ya: http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/tp/EvolutionScienceCriteria.htm

    That doesn’t change the fact that Christianity is not a hypothesis, theory or law. It is myth. Plain and simple and there’s no amount of evidence to refute that.

  31. Brian Says:

    “I believe evolution is a hypothesis.”
    Sorry, but that’s not subject to belief. It is a theory.
    “I am not a scientist but there are plenty of them on the side of creationism to refute evolution.”
    Find one published, peer reviewed, scientific paper in support of creationism or intelligent design.

    In the meantime, here’s Answers in Genesis’s list of scientists who support creationism: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/#presentsci
    And, here’s the National Center for Science Education’s list of scientists with a variation of the name Steve who accept evolution: http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves

  32. Evo Says:

    Commentors:

    The link you probably found to get here said “Discuss this book”. Please make sure you are discussing the book. Also, ad hominem attacks are against the rules, so be careful.

    I’ll agree that the book is contentious. So please — contend. But be nice. And discuss the concepts inside the book. There are plenty of places to argue the larger question of atheism vs. religion, so let’s keep this focused on the book itself, shall we?

    Don’t make me pull this comment thread over.

    Evo, The Guy With The Delete Power.

  33. Joe Says:

    Evo,

    Thanks. As you’ll see from my comments, I tried to make my discussion about the book and the author’s perspective in writing it.

    Having said that I can also say – as someone who listened to the book – that the subsequent threads speak directly to Vic’s thesis.

    The intellectual foundation of the book is that the Christian Bible is an inerrant factual text, the perfect word of an intelligent creator. All arguments flow from this point of view. Since more Americans believe in Angels than evolution by natural selection, a great many – if not a majority – in the American public would agree with Vic.

    There really isn’t a way to talk about the book or ideas without addressing that issue.

    I hope the discussion can continue in a civil fashion. As much as I find Vic’s arguments to be irrational and offensive (because I don’t share the same central thesis), I don’t think there is malicious intent behind them.

  34. DuckPhup Says:

    OK… I tried to listen to this Podiobook. I really did. And I resolved, before-hand, that I would listen without preconceptions… and I did that. But here’s the thing… it is so painfully, toxically, droolingly, malignantly STUPID as to be cringe-worthy. I found myself being EMBARRASSED on behalf of HUMANITY… realizing that it is possible for people to actually (allegedly) THINK like this, without having their heads explode.

    I could not continue.

    The ‘Guy With The Delete Power’ keeps reiterating that commentors should ‘be nice’. OK… I was. That was ABSOLUTELY… sincerely… the nicest thing that I could honestly say about this… this… dreck.

  35. Vic Zarley Says:

    I’m listening. Thank you.

  36. Dave1 Says:

    I have listened to about an hour and that is all I care to listen to. There is nothing wrong with the book except that it was advertised as a scholary rebuttal to Dawkins. There is nothing about this in the book. He does not even mention Dawkins writings in the part that I have listened to. It is strictly a sermon about the Christian life. There is nothing wrong with this, if that is what you want to listen to, but can get this from other places and from better writers. There is no indication in the first hour or so that he has even read Dawkins. Sorry but I won’t be listening to anymore.

  37. Elena Says:

    Don’t be discouraged–I’m glad that the author has left this book up, although I’m also glad that (as far as I can tell) the description was adjusted to make the book’s intent a bit clearer. I’m impressed with the author’s unfailing politeness.

  38. Leah Says:

    What a waste of time.

    Loving atheists is easy. Especially since the majority of us aren’t like Sam, Daniel, Christopher and Richard in the sense that we are not “out” and writing books about the end of faith. We aren’t “out” there knocking on doors handing out pamphlets that say “Do you know about evolution?”

    We walk among you, raising happy families, helping others, and doing it without professing a belief system for doing so. Your perception of atheism or non-belief is so far skewed I don’t know where to start. And quite frankly, I don’t care to bother. I listened multiple times to the first 7 or 8 chapters and you continually contradict your message of love with a sense of superiority. You think we feel empty in our lives which couldn’t be further from the truth. Do some more reaearch, like maybe talk to an atheist or 2, before you write a book about what you think we are.

Leave a Reply