Free e-book—today only!

July 1, 2013 • 7:36 am

You can’t beat this. For today only, the e-book God or Godless? One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions, a written debate between John Loftus and Randal Rauser, is available for free. We all know Loftus, and Rauser is an evangelical Christian working at the Taylor Seminary at Edmonton, Alberta.

You can get the book gratis either on Amazon or from other sites listed on John Loftus’s site, Debunking Christianity.

I haven’t read it yet, but the Amazon precis says this:

Perhaps the most persistent question in human history is whether or not there is a God. Intelligent people on both sides of the issue have argued, sometimes with deep rancor and bitterness, for generations. The issue can’t be decided by another apologetics book, but the conversation can continue and help each side understand the perspectives of the other.

In this unique book, atheist John Loftus and theist Randal Rauser engage in twenty short debates that consider Christianity, the existence of God, and unbelief from a variety of angles. Each concise debate centers on a proposition to be resolved, with either John or Randal arguing in the affirmative and the opponent the negative, and can be read in short bits or big bites. This is the perfect book for Christians and their atheist or agnostic friends to read together, and encourages honest, open, and candid debate on the most important issues of life and faith.

And, on his website, Loftus summarizes a review of the book by Robert Price in Free Inquiry. The review was apparently favorable about Loftus’s parts, not so favorable about Rauser’s.

Well, I think it’s best read by atheists or the faithful on their own, for verbal debate is not as useful at changing minds as quiet reading and reflection.

The price goes up to $6.99 tomorrow.  I don’t have a Kindle, but maybe some kind reader can send me a pdf.

Picture 1

56 thoughts on “Free e-book—today only!”

  1. “Well, I think it’s best read by atheists or the faithful on their own, for verbal debate is not as useful at changing minds as quiet reading and reflection.”

    I agree completely.

    1. Can’t help you with a PDF, but after you “buy” it on Amazon there’s a link to read it online with their “Cloud Reader”.

      1. There are also free desktop applications for Amazon Kindle for Windows and Mac OS, last I checked.

        2. Sorry I didn’t see this before putting a new comment, below, with the web address for the application for that. If you’ll all forgive the redundancy, it’s: amazon.com/gp/kindle/pc/download .

        3. It’s also available for iOS. Convenient really. You can carry your whole library on your PC, Mac, iPad and/or phone wherever you go.

  3. Thanks Jerry for mentioning this! I appreciate it. I also look forward to reading any and all reviews of it on Amazon, or anywhere else. I think I did the cause of atheism well.

  5. Yes, Kindle Cloud Reader works in Win 7, and is free. Likely for other OS also.

  6. After D/Ling to my Desktop Mac, it also became available on my Android Galaxy Nexus.

    And iPad!

    Wotta deal!

    (If I had a set of Google Glasses it would probably be available there, too!)

    Thanks for the hot-tip!

    1. I’m such a geek – I used Calibre to remove the DRM and convert to epub so I could read on my Moon Pro reader on my Nexus. I had a lot of fun figuring out how to do this with a Kindle book. 🙂 I see Alexandra M already shared a link so Jerry should be taken care of now! 🙂

  8. I am not favorably impressed by Randal Rauser. Chris Hallquist has had some recent back and forth with him:
    Intelligent design, creationism, and fundamentalism: a reply to Randal Rauser

    Rauser is still riding the Intelligent Design bandwagon like the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial never happened. He insists that William Dembski is not a “creationist” although Dembski has self-identified as an “old earth creationist.” Rauser’s reasoning: Ronald Numbers decreed that “creationist” = “young earth creationist.” I quoted at length from Numbers’ book disproving this, which received no response or even acknowledgement from Rauser.

    In the back and forth with Hallquist, Rauser engages in childish antics. If he doesn’t like a question he is asked, he strawmans prodigiously; pretending a different question was asked, and then getting offended by it. He refuses to answer a question until the questioner first answers a counter-question. In short, what you do not get from him is honest, substantive discussion.

    1. I agree with your characterization but still plan on picking up the book. I’ll even be tentatively optimistic, in that one might expect RR’s most scholarly, thoughtful arguments to come out in a book (vs. a web page, where author comments tend to be more off-the-cuff).

    2. Could you tell me where Dembski has characterized himself as an “old earth creationist”? I wasn’t aware that he had, and it flies in the face of the Discovery Institute’s claim that ID isn’t “creationism.”

      Thanks.

      1. I found this on Wikipedia…

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski

        “Dembski wrote The End of Christianity (2009), which argued that a Christian can reconcile an old earth creationist view with a literal reading of Adam and Eve in the Bible by accepting the scientific consensus of a 4.5 billion year of Earth.[39] He further wrote that “Noah’s flood likely was limited to the Middle East rather than being global in scope.””

      2. Bill Dembski on young vs. old Earth creationists, and where he stands
        Uncommon Descent, Feb 22, 2012
        ”
        What I was dealing with in The End of Christianity is a more narrow problem, namely, how to account for evil within a Christian framework given a reading of Genesis that allows the earth and universe to be billions, rather than merely thousands, of years old. I’m an old-earth creationist, so I accept that the earth and universe are billions of years old. Young-earth creationism, which is the more traditional view, holds that the earth is only thousands of years old.”

          1. I linked that very NCSE article for him. He dismissed it, appealing instead to Ronald Numbers. Since I destroyed that errant claim, he has not responded or acknowledged on that subject.

          5. I already placed a lengthy quote from the introduction to The Creationists (1992) both at Rauser’s blog and Chris Hallquist’s blog, both linked above.

    3. “I am not favorably impressed by Randal Rauser”

      Just what I thought after reading the first chapter of this book. His argument was idiotic and not even really arguing the chosen topic.

    4. Which makes him essentially indistinguishable from all the other liars for Jesus.

  9. JAC, Amazon offers a free program which puts the Kindle application on your PC computer. The link is here: amazon.com/gp/kindle/pc/download. It lets you use your PC to read all Kindle downloads.
    Cheers!

  10. If you have an iPhone or iPad, the Kindle app is free. I just had the book sent to my iPad from Amazon.

    1. It is available in Canada through the Christian Book Distributors link on Loftus’ site.

      1. Not in Canada either but continental Europe, so non-Anglo country.
        However, I managed to download it anyway: just told amazon that I moved to the US :mrgreen:

      2. It worked for me on Amazon as well. I think for certain ebooks they don’t care if you’re in Canada

  13. Thanks for the heads up, but I don’t need it. I don’t need a book titled “Who Won the Civil War: The North or the South?” either.

      1. How is what I said rude? What are your parameters on what you think is an acceptable comment? My comment was to reflect my assessment that the question god or godless is pretty much settled, at least in my mind.

        If you do not mind me saying, but I am sure you do, you take offense far too easily.

        1. It’s a superfluous comment that is means just to show that you are superior to those who like the book. An acceptable comment is one that furthers the discussion or says something novel, neither of which you have done.

  14. I’ve only read the first topic in this, but I feel there is very little point in reading any more of it simply because Randal Rauser’s argument was so shallow.

    What’s worse, he didn’t seem to realise his examples undermined his own position. It is ironic that he chose Nancy Sinatra’s go-go boots as an example of design. He argues that designed objects have a proper use, in this case perambulatory, and that to not use them for that purpose is to somehow fail: “Typically it is not wise to flout the intended purposes of the original designer.”

    As go-go boots are a triumph of form over function I suspect anyone who tried to walk any real distance in them would soon come to regret it. But Sinatra did use them to help comment on gender issues, as a statement of personal power, an affirmation, and to sell a lot of singles. A creative use, and probably not something the original designer had considered.

    Then Rauser considers a naturally occurring thing, a lump of rock, for which he finds a couple of prosaic applications.

    But the thing that immediately leapt out at me was that for both the boots and the rock meaning was given to these objects by humans interacting with them creatively — the boots a powerful symbol, the rock by turns a cutting implement, a hammer, a weapon. In neither case was that meaning innate.

    He then gives a rather strained analogy, with a fictional mass murdering prostitute taking the part of the misuse of a life, and the rather odious Mother Teresa taking the part of a life lived to its fullest purpose. But I suppose if she is the proper role model there is still time for me to take up abusing the powerless and the poor.

    Later he goes on to mischaracterise and straw-man Loftus’ opening statement. John’s statement is reasonable, extolling humanist principles of creating the good life. I won’t spend much time on it, except to note it suffered a little for me as I have just read Grayling’s new book on the same subject matter. It is a pretty hard act to follow when restricted to 800 or so words.

    1. It doesn’t get any better.

      God couldn’t really have desired child sacrifice so those bits of the Bible must be wrong or misinterpreted.

      God was being ironic when He commanded genocide.

      God allowed the Bible to be misinterpreted to support slavery as a parable, a warning of how quickly we can move from liberation to oppression

      Good grief, it’s embarrassing.

      As for misusing a tool – sure I don’t like to use a screwdriver as a chisel or a wood plane as a hammer. largely because they’re not very good at it and it would spoil them. But there’s nothing immoral about it. The designer isn’t going to come round to your workshop and try to burn you to death for abusing the screwdriver.

      And if he did I wouldn’t hesitate to use a saw, air-nailer and two 4×4’s as a weapon. Let him resurrect himself from that one.

      1. Those quotes are pretty sad.

        Somewhere in the comments on Debunking Christianity Loftus says that Rauser is “one of the best apologists they’ve got…” If that’s an example of the best it is kind of tragic.

  15. Thank you for the heads up on the book, it is available in the iBook store.
    I’m through the first 6 debates and what seems consistent to me is Randal’s argument that the bible doesn’t literally mean what is says. He claims you have to use your moral intuition as a guide on how to interpret the bible when ever it says something you don’t agree with.
    I find this odd since he also state that morals come from god’s divine authority.

  16. I just saw this book posted on Richard Carrier’s blog and downloaded it. I am looking forward to reading it.

  17. You can get a Kindle for the computer as a program for free. Just go onto Amazon’s site, and look around. Can’t remember how I did that to say any more than that.

  18. Well, this is just getting silly. In chapter 16, part of Randal’s opening rebuttal to The Biblical God is Ignorant about the Future, we get this gem.
    Once you have reason to believe a man named Dave is a police officer, you automatically have reason to believe Dave can operate a firearm, even if you have never seen him handle one. The reason is simple: being a police officer requires the ability to operate a firearm. Therefore, if you have reason to believe Dave is a police officer, you have reason to believe he can operate a firearm……..
    For example, if you prayed to Yahweh and that prayer was answered (see chapter 17), that would provide prima facie support that Yahweh is God. After all, according to Ockham’s razor (do not multiply entities beyond necessity), it is simpler to posit Yahweh as the deity answering prayer rather than posit him as a subordinate agent to a deity. The same reasoning applies to those who become persuaded that Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead (see chapter 19).
    I’m not sure I’ll be able to make it though the rest of the book.

  19. I wasn’t able to get the book through any of: Amazon.ca, amazon.com or amazon.co.uk. Barns and noble insisted on me providing (and then verifying) my credit card, before informing me that it wasn’t available in Canada.

    So I tried the Christian Bookstore, who also insisted on way too much information, but did let me download it. I now have an account with a Christian Book store (slightly less useful than an umbrella on a sailboat) – who’d’ve ever thunk that!

    1. I have non idea why amazon.com sells me ebooks. I think it was because I used to buy them for my iPad years ago when you couldn’t even buy kindles from amazon.ca. Either way shhhhhh don’t tell them! 😉

  20. Downloaded the Kindle app and the book; read the first chapter (Randal’s statement was what we mathematicians refer to as “proof by assertion”; John’s refutation was pretty good, but would have been better if he’d had a bit more space).

    Thank you one and all for bringing this to light.

  21. ” god or godless ?” has a great recommended reading list because it has ” Why evolution is true ” listed at Debate 14 & 18, also V. Stenger, R. Carrier, R Dawkins etc.

    RE Chpt 12 ” The babble god does not care much for animals “. John made the most intelligent, reality based comments. He mentions Genesis 1v28 which has to be one of the most ruinous ideas to life on Earth : ” And god cursed them by saying, ‘ Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it ‘”.

    Now this wasn’t such a hazardous aim 500 BCE when it was actually nigh impossible to do so given high death rate due to disease and fossil fuel hadn’t been discovered to reduce malnutrition & increase carrying capacity. However if a real god had cared for the amazing diversity that had evolved on Earth over 3.5 billion years then Gen 1v28 should maybe have said, ” And god blessed them by saying, ‘ Only have a maximum 2 children per woman, never exceed 1 billion world population and do not burn fossil fuel. Here is how to make contraceptives…And here is all the other information about the universe… ”
    [ Well actually a real god could have supernaturally controlled fertility and death rate to prevent population rising above 1 billion & prevent ill health etc. ]

    The bable is written by barbarians, witchdoctors & peasants and, by it’s own admission, following it’s advise will lead to an apocalypse,[ though not the real one ]. Too many people will result in them burning all the trees & eating all the animals.

    If Jesus or his creators had any supernatural powers of insight he would have said, ” The Septuagint is mostly mistaken. It was for Before Civilization but is now ADdled. In the future you need to aim for sustainable living. 2 child policy or your world will head toward armageddon; species extinction, degradation of habitat etc, p.s build composting toilets and here’s how… And again I say to you, do not get on the run away mine train or
    in 2015 years from my official birthday you will be facing world peak oil ( if you are a pessimist or 2030 if you are an optimist )

    Like JWL said p102 : god should simply have made us all vegetarian or vegan.
    Yet Genesis 9v3 Has god saying Noah can eat everything that lives and moves.
    Again Gen 9v1 advises, ” increase and fill the earth.”- which is a recipe for conflict & war
    Again Gen 22v17 Abrahams descendants like grains of sand on seashore = obviously god is not great at statistics either- he should have consulted Albert Bartlett on YT.

    It may turn out that the babble contributed to extinction of life on Earth ( worst case scenario ) or at least severe degradation

      1. “Good luck with that.”

        Current population is a bit over seven billion; reducing that to a half a billion would mean somehow getting rid of six and a half billion people, or about 93% of the population. No matter how you look at it, that’s basically an extinction event.

        The only way that could happen without catastrophe would be to restrict births to the point that the population decreased at about the same rate it’s increased. That’d get you to the half billion mark in about a half a millennium…but, for that whole time, the population will be mostly geriatric with a few young people doing little else but take care of their grandparents — and a bunch of other people’s grandparents as well. That’s not exactly socially sustainable, either.

        And anything that reduces the population faster than that is going to be so devastating that there aren’t going to be any utopias left in its wake.

        Of course, that’s not to say that we’ll be able to avoid exactly that sort of a crash as we simultaneously run out of cheap fossil fuels and choke ourselves in the fumes of those we’ve already burned and continue to burn, but that’s another matter entirely….

        b&

  22. I’m changing the sign on my bedroom door from
    ” Jebus is coming, give him some privacy ”
    to ” Come Lord Jebus come, even if it is prematurely or else you’ll be stood up. Whip your chosen ones away with you, elope and leave the rest of us to live a sustainable subsistence existence ”

    There are pros & cons to each issue;
    Could it help save Earth from run away global warming if Jebus would rapture all religious people away right now? It would preserve biodiversity. Both desirable if the biosphere is valued.

    Just say there were only 1000 million people left behind on Earth in 2013. What sort of civilization would they manage to maintain ?
    Would they manage to maintain all the books written or computers & an internet ? Would they be able to get enough materials from recycling stuff already in use? If they feared to burn any more fossil fuel in case it made global warming worse would they be able to do any mining of ore ? Or refining it ? After a century would most of the technology have become obsolete with no way of restoring it ? Would they manage to make enough charcoal to power manufacturing plants to make
    medical or dental equipment ? Would nuclear power stations start to release radiation even if they had been shut down before abandonment ?
    If the nuclear power station hasn’t been fully decommissioned does it eventually blow up ?

    An advantage of fossil fuels is that it has allowed us to find out a myriad interesting things about our world, thoroughly refute Bable
    based texts and make life more pleasant in many ways. Maybe the advances wouldn’t have been achieved if population had been restricted to two per woman using contraception ? However it is going to be a pity to have learned so much only to see it evaporate. But if the technology isn’t there does the manual about it lose meaning ?

    If all world leaders ( including misleaders like ministers, imams etc ) had advised a 1-2 child policy starting in 1920 or even 1960 then could the human race have had all the technology and be looking forward to another million years of existence- having given themselves 3 times longer to develop Thermonuclear fusion & succeeded Vs running out of resources & power too soon ? The wheels falling off civilization ?

    It has been both fortunate and unfortunate to have so much fossil fuel

Comments are closed.