Concise Criticism of Christianity (new book)

[Vito Lear]

Proud to be published on the Secular Web. Now online and soon to be out in print too. Any thoughts about this new book?

Bad Faith: A Concise Criticism of Christianity » Internet Infidels

In this short online book, Vito Lear presents a primer that outlines questions, issues, and evidence illustrating that Christianity has failed to meet its burden to prove its extraordinary claim to have the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Lear’s concise inquiry focuses on three...

infidels.org

 

[Politesse]

Irony, perhaps?

 

[Janice Rael]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Christianity claims to have the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

This is an extraordinary claim, so

The claim that "Christianity claims to ..." is on its face demonstrably untenable. This is a theological debate to begin with, one that can never be decided, due to the broad, ever-changing spectrum of variety in Christian beliefs.

Therefore, none of the rest follows.

Each of your own subsequent claims regarding the nature of Christianity are premised on such particular matters that they can't really be said to adequately or accurately address the things you say they address. How can they? Christianity is not concrete; no religions are.

Christians could say, to almost any of your own line items, that they do not believe this, they do not read this, this is not their teaching or theology, they do not require evidence in order to have faith, they do not care about this, or any number of things that could demonstrate any line of your booklet as not applying to them, or, therefore, to Christianity.

I'm not trying to be rude, Vito. But you went first, and you made an extraordinary claim, followed by a list of many more of your own claims and the claims of the authors you referenced. Your initial ideas are strawmen, or can be construed as such, since they do not necessarily apply to each aspect of Christianity. They can't; it's not possible.

 

[Gospel]

Janice's critique of the book generalizing Christianity is valid. While the book focuses on critiquing the most prominent forms of the religion, its weaknesses lie in its tone and the use of strawman arguments, as Janice noted.

The fundamental premise of the Old Testament is that God made greed, lust, and other sins inherent in human nature and then blamed us for them. Reportedly, God sent a snake to tempt Eve to eat an apple, and since she fell for this entrapment scheme, her children were doomed to suffer the consequences of 'knowledge' and 'free will.'"

While some Christian interpretations emphasize a literal reading of Genesis, many modern theologies interpret it metaphorically, focusing on themes like human nature, free will, and moral choice, rather than as an entrapment scheme by God. As such the above can arguably be considered a strawman.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

While I agree with every single word here, the tone is not just critical but aggressively dismissive, making it harder for believers or more neutral readers to engage with the argument.

But the brains he gave us require evidence for faith, and our only evidence started as decades of oral legend, then Gospels and Epistles full of hearsay and contradictions, then twenty centuries of argument, schism, persecution, corruption, and sectarian war. This is our instruction manual for life?

This is sarcastic and dismissive, implying Christian scripture is unworthy of serious consideration. The shift from critique to derision weakens the argument, making it less persuasive to differing views.

While I found all these examples both entertaining and pleasant to read, they become problematic if the book isn't intended for an already agreeing audience.

Edit: I forgot to mention that despite my nitpicks, the book is overall fantastic and informative.

 

[Janice Rael]

Proud to be published on the Secular Web. Now online and soon to be out in print too. Any thoughts about this new book?

Bad Faith: A Concise Criticism of Christianity » Internet Infidels

In this short online book, Vito Lear presents a primer that outlines questions, issues, and evidence illustrating that Christianity has failed to meet its burden to prove its extraordinary claim to have the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Lear’s concise inquiry focuses on three...

infidels.org

Hi, @Vito Lear

I know that it's only been two weeks since I replied to your announcement about your new article on the Secular Web Modern Documents Library, but, have you had a chance yet to re-visit your article yet?

I don't want to bother Keith Augustine unless I have to, Vito, so I am asking you directly if you could review the posted standards for publication on the Secular Web, found here: https://infidels.org/infidels/submission-guidelines/

Specifically:

SCHOLARLY PAPERS intended for publication in the Modern Documents section of the LIBRARY should be precise, focused, formal–and above all critical–introducing and developing a thesis in an objective and unbiased manner, and providing solid argumentation which leads logically to one or more conclusions which a level-headed reader would likely find persuasive.

Vito, you are a published author whose profile states that you have degrees in history and law. You represent academia.

Are you certain that your article is the best you can do? Is this your A+ work?

I don't know about you, or, the current peer reviewers on the Secular Web, but, I expect nothing less than excellence from the articles I read on the SecWeb Modern Library.

I hold this site in the highest regard humanly possible. I can say this in all earnest, because I read what you wrote, and it's here, so, a few humans did not do their best work.

Since some people died for this, and, since I know that this site's decades-long sponsor feels very strongly that the Secular Web is important, and special, and valuable; and worthy of his generosity, I am therefore heavily invested in the quality of content on the SecWeb, the content that is intended to be the absolute best, most accurate, and irrefutable articles online.

Sir, with all due respect, I am asking you, the author, if you are satisfied with your work here.

If you say "yes," this is your final, edited, only draft, then my next questions will begin with "Why" and will be directed to a higher authority, after I point out that it could be possible for any English-speaking person to refute your entire article, line by line, to show the entire world each and every flaw and mistake in your published article.

I am not going to do your proofreading for free.

I need you and Keith to understand that you do not need to be inaccurate, incorrect, or otherwise open to refutation.

The Mythicist content here, that is openly mocked every day for its blatant absence of accuracy, is more than enough to demonstrate that the Secular Web has an image problem, at the very least. Articles that can be refuted do not meet the stated goals of this 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, in my opinion, and any content that is not sheer perfection can be used to show how the publisher, the SecWeb, may not uphold its own standards.

Nothing can be done regarding this site's decisions to publish that content.

I do not yet know whether or not anything can be done about new content that is so facile and grammatically incorrect.

I have shown the utmost restraint in my efforts to convey my message.

I believe that the Secular Web articles and content affect the image of atheists in the public eye.

Thank you, Vito Lear. I look forward to your response.

 

[Gospel]

Is it me or is it getting hot in here?

 

[Politesse]

I calls em like I sees em.

 

[Vito Lear]

Greetings Janice et al. Thanks for reading and commenting. I tuned out for a few weeks so am just now reading this. I was not aware that revision of the work was an option. Upon review, I agree the tone is a little too smug and could be improved to make it more attractive to religion-neutral readers. But the facts and citations were checked and are valid.

Recall that this was written for people who do not study this stuff like the regulars on this forum do. For people who have never heard of Hitchens and Harris. So what may seem like a straw-man argument to some experts here, is a regular argument to others. I was not trying to convince the William Lane Craig fans of the world. But if you think certain points are dumb or wrong, feel free to email or PM me, and I may revise, if the editors want me to.