I came home the other week to discover a package at my door. I thought it was odd, since I hadn’t ordered anything. I picked up the package and saw that it was from “The Berean Call”, a Christian book publisher. Based on the weight, I could tell it was a book. My first thought was that maybe my aunt had sent me a Bible. A few months earlier, she had asked me what church I went to, and I had told her that I don’t go. I thought, perhaps that answer had prompted her to send me a Bible. I opened the package and discovered that the book was actually, “Cosmos, Creator, and Human Destiny: Answering Darwin, Dawkins, and the New Atheists”, sent by my dad. Hmmm, this should be interesting. Then I noticed that the author was Dave Hunt.
For those not familiar with Dave Hunt, he’s big into televangelism and the end times. I don’t think he has a TV program, but he’s sometimes called to appear on Christian programs as a kind of end-times expert. I’ve seen enough of his stuff in the past to know that he’s kind of paranoid and not very knowledgeable (at least not outside his specialty of end times prophecy). On the scale of Christian apologists, he scores pretty low. Nevertheless, he’s a prolific author and sells lots of books (according to wikipedia, he’s sold over 4 million books).
It would be interesting to do a full book review, but I’m not sure that I can stomach writing a review of his entire 500+ page book. I will say this: if I didn’t know better, this 500 page hardcover book does look impressive and authoritative. I did write an email to my dad reviewing the first section of the book, if for no other reason than to point out that Dave Hunt is paranoid and doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Here’s a review of the first part of the book, just to give you an idea of Dave Hunt’s work:
Preface
Anyone who sets out with an honest heart, an inquiring mind, and a sincere desire to find answers to the most important questions one can face in life will recognize a significant few that must be given priority. Does God exist? What is the origin of the universe and of the life found in such abundance on our tiny planet? What is life and what is its purpose?
Another vital question is whether or not our vast universe of astonishing complexity and order is all the result of a giant explosion commonly called “The Big Bang.” This theory is a radical departure from the conclusion that had been reached by the theistic founders of modern science. The undeniable order that they had observed caused them to look for laws that must govern the phenomena. Having discovered these laws, they concluded that the universe had been created by a “God of order”.
Thus was laid the theistic foundation of modern science, but that foundation is no longer accepted. Atheists have taken over and now claim the sole right to speak for science. They cannot deny the order evident everywhere but grudgingly refer to it as the “appearance” of order. Appearance? Such an oft-repeated half-admission ought to be an embarrassment to legitimate scientists. (Page 7)
So, modern science’s foundation was deeply rooted in belief in a monotheistic creator, but now the mantle of science was hijacked by atheists. What’s even more odd about the hyperbole that “Atheists have taken over and now claim the sole right to speak for science.” is the fact that the book sleeve contains a quote from Stephen Hawking: “Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?… It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God.” Of course, since the “atheists have taken over and claim the sole right to speak for science”, Stephen Hawking (along with Einstein) was promptly kicked out of the scientist club.
More importantly, the idea of Christians being oppressed by non-Christian foes is a common one among fundamentalists. It promotes a feeling of victimization, which helps motivate them to become more politically active and cling to their beliefs and Christian identity more tightly. It also fits reinforces a black-white worldview of Christians (who’ll go to heaven if they stay faithful) vs “the World” (who will go to hell, deserve to go to hell, and follow the forces of darkness in opposition to God).
It was principally two men, Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud, who attempted to quash any possibility that the God of the theists portrayed in the Bible could be the Creator. No creator was necessary. (Page 7)
I have to say, the addition of Sigmund Freud in that list seems like an odd addition. I had thought Sigmund Freud’s theories have largely been discredited, and are largely ignored at this point. There’s also the fact that Charles Darwin wasn’t the rabid anti-theist that they’d like him to be. I think the reason it’s useful to paint Darwin as “attempting to quash any possibility [of God]” is because, once you impugn his motives, you don’t really need to deal with the facts or details. It’s all about motives. There’s the god-loving and then there’s the God-hating. All leading up to the end-times when God will split humanity into two groups on Judgment Day.
Beginning with Darwin himself, atheists have left a plethora of false promises. Darwin’s first book was titled The Origin of Species, yet even his staunchest admirers admit that in spite of many pages filled with many words, Darwin never explained the origin of any species. Nor has any atheist yet succeeded in doing so. In spite of this undeniable fact, Darwin’s admirers continue to grow in numbers as desperate minds try by some means to support his original thesis. ( Page 8 )
I’m going to guess that Dave Hunt has never read the Origin of Species, and doesn’t really understand natural selection or geographical isolation leading to speciation.
Chapter 1: The Challenge of the Cosmos
Space has been called “the last frontier,” and its explorations the greatest challenge faced by mankind in its history… It is conceivable that within a few thousand years (if they were available) man could thoroughly explore and learn everything there is to know about our own solar system. What, then, would have been achieved at great cost in time, effort, money, and quite possibly, more lives? The obvious answer is that almost nothing in comparison to the overall cosmos! This is not what space scientists are leading us to believe, not is it what their supporters want to hear. It is, however, the uncomfortable truth.
The facts are simple. Estimates vary that there are from 100-500 billion suns in our own galaxy, the Milky Way, and perhaps as many as one trillion other galaxies in the universe, many of them larger than ours. So, after learning all there is to know about our solar system, our descendants would have in their computers information from one-100-billionth or one-trillionth of a sample of the universe — statistically meaningless. ( Page 11, 12 )
Dave Hunt goes on for a number of pages about the space program and its futility. I couldn’t quite figure out where he was going with this. My first thought was that he was merely trying to paint space scientists (and all scientists, by extension) as idiots, wasting time and money on a quest they can’t possibly finish.
Five pages later, he gets around to it:
The underlying purpose of the “Space Program”
Much, if not most, of the time, money, and effort being expended on the “space program” is driven by the speculative hope of proving that belief in “God” is an outdated hypothesis that is no longer needed to explain anything. ( Page 16 )
Um, what? How is the space program supposed to prove that? It’s starting to sound like some conspiratorial “us vs them” thinking – where the space program is part of a hidden atheist agenda against Christianity.
How does life originate? Those who, like atheists, reject the biblical claim that God created every living thing including man, have no other way of explaining how life began. All they can say is that it must have spontaneously come into existence. Louis Pasteur had already proved that “spontaneous generation” was nothing but superstition. As a result, the law of biogenesis was firmly established as inviolable scientific fact. This law unequivocally declares that life only comes from life. Although atheists admit that they cannot challenge the validity of this established law, they object that unless there is at least one exception they are forced to acknowledge that life could have come about only through a supernatural act of creation. For atheists, this conclusion is of course unacceptable. They claim that there must have been millions of exceptions to this law that occurred all over the universe and that the origin of life on Earth was one of them. Of course, this is both irrational and unscientific. ( Page 17 )
The most obvious flaw in this argument is that Pasteur’s experiment did not establish a law of biogenesis. All it did was show that the common myth that maggots spontaneously formed from rotting meat was wrong. Flies are complex organisms with a genome roughly 1/10th the size of the human genome. To take the result: “maggots don’t spontaneously form from rotting meat” and conclude that “spontaneous generation can never happen” is a gross over-generalization. It’s certainly true that life comes from life the vast majority of the time, but you certainly can’t prove that using Pasteur’s experiment. Pasteur stated that “all life is from life” and “spontaneous generation is a dream”, and while he’s generally correct and he refuted the common examples of spontaneous generation, his experiments can’t actually prove spontaneous generation can’t happen.
Has it ever been shown that there is even one exception to the law of biogenesis anywhere in the cosmos? Never! Yet the only hope to salvage evolution would require millions, and possibly billions, of exceptions to this law, evidenced by life appearing spontaneously all over the universe. ( Page 17 )
To be fair, we haven’t looked all over the cosmos. For all we know, life is everywhere and we wouldn’t know it. Up until twenty years ago, we knew of no planets outside our solar system. We certainly aren’t in the position to check them for life. And while it would be surprising for atheist-evolutionists if we checked every solar system in the Milky Way and found zero instances of life, it still wouldn’t destroy evolution because spontaneous generation could be something that happens around only one in a trillion stars (the Milky Way only has 100+ billion stars).
Here we confront two problems … for all other evolutionists who claim to believe in God:
1) Doesn’t the belief that space has other intelligent, human-like occupants (a necessary corollary to the theory of evolution) do away with the entire idea of a supernatural act of creation and thus with the God of the Bible? If “spontaneous generation” could happen on planet Earth, why not on millions of other similar planets? The clear implication from Genesis to Revelation is that the creation of Adam and Eve was a unique event, never having occurred before nor would ever occur again, anywhere in the cosmos.
At this point, we are not arguing for acceptance of either the biblical account or of the atheistic account but simply showing their incompatibility with each other. How can any “believer” share in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence when such creatures could not exist except through a creative act of God? Yet what the Bible says from Genesis to Revelation reveals that the search for human-like creatures outside of Earth, which is a large part of the space program, of necessity denies the existence of the Creator God in whom all Christians supposedly believe. ( Page 22 )
A lot to unpack there.
* “Doesn’t the belief that space has other intelligent, human-like occupants do away with the entire idea of a supernatural act of creation and thus with the God of the Bible?”
No. Christians could easily claim God told humans “what they needed to know” in the Bible, and did not include details about extraterrestrial civilizations just like he didn’t mention various laws of Chemistry. Christians could cite Galileo, who said: “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go” (“the heavens” in this case could be expanded from the planets to include extraterrestrials around other stars). Or, could cite C.S. Lewis as arguing that Christianity doesn’t have any problem with extraterrestrials: “In an essay Lewis wrote in 1958, he argued that the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life would not necessarily contradict Christian theology. And like Father Funes, Lewis said it was possible that such beings, if they exist, might have fallen from a state of grace and in that case might be redeemed through God’s mercy.” (Link) I’d also be willing to bet that if intelligent life was found elsewhere in the universe, that Dave Hunt would quickly backpedal and declare that extraterrestrials are compatible with Christian theology.
* “The clear implication from Genesis to Revelation is that the creation of Adam and Eve was a unique event, never having occurred before nor would ever occur again, anywhere in the cosmos.”
Not sure how much of a “clear implication” this is.
* “How can any “believer” share in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence when such creatures could not exist except through a creative act of God?”
So, if we ever found extraterrestrials, Dave Hunt would immediately declare “God made ’em!” Problem solved.
* “Yet what the Bible says from Genesis to Revelation reveals that the search for human-like creatures outside of Earth, which is a large part of the space program, of necessity denies the existence of the Creator God in whom all Christians supposedly believe.”
First, “a large part of the space program” is not searching for human-level intelligence in space. NASA is not involved in that at all. At most, NASA is interested in finding microbial life on Mars or Europa. We already know that human-level intelligence doesn’t exist on other planets in our solar system. The only program looking for extraterrestrial intelligence is SETI, and that is not funded by NASA or government dollars at all; it’s funded by donations. Dave Hunt has no idea what he’s talking about if he thinks a large part of NASA’s budget is going to find intelligent life in the universe.
The second problem Hunt raises “for all evolutionists who claim to believe in God” isn’t a question for theistic evolutionists at all. It’s a question for atheist-evolutionists.
2) Moreover, one wonders why there should be any concern for the survival of man or any other species… If we are simply the accidental product of a “big bang,” plus chance, plus a billion years of something called evolution working through “natural selection”, of what importance could man’s brief survival be in the billions of years of evolutionary history? The cosmos doesn’t care, so why should we, a few unimportant creatures unknown to the cosmos, have any concern for our own survival. ( Page 22-23 )
Presumably there is no “grand importance” to humanity’s existence, but I prefer that we continue existing. I like existing. I don’t see the point of arguing that “the cosmos doesn’t care, why should you?” – as if we need something larger than ourselves to care in order to justify our own feelings. To turn the question back around on him, I suppose I could ask, “God doesn’t care whether you eat roast beef or turkey for lunch, therefore, why should you?”, and with that, Dave Hunt would suddenly collapse into indecisiveness and ennui about his lunch choices.
Did natural selection implant that concern [for existence] within us? If so, why?
It’s pretty obvious that natural selection would prefer creatures who cared for their own existence. If you had two groups of creatures: one group who wanted to continue existing, and another group that didn’t care whether they continued existing, I’m pretty sure the first group would survive and reproduce better than the second group. This isn’t a big mystery for atheist-evolutionists.
“the belief that space has other intelligent, human-like occupants (a necessary corollary to the theory of evolution)”
Hehehe. If there is one thing to learn from the rich variety of life on earth, it is that life elsewhere in the universe, if it exists, would be anything but “human-like”!
Waffle and codswallop tiny frog. Get back to yer pond!
Hey there tinyfrog,
I’m going to preface this note by saying that I am a Creationist, young-earth believing (not necessarily believing the world is 6000 yrs old but nonetheless not billions) Christian. First off, it’s nice to see some criticism and reaction online from an atheist who has at least picked up the book and read a little bit. It’s great to read all the glowing praise and adulation from those who tend to agree with what Mr. Hunt has written, but I find it’s more important to see what sort of rebuttals can be brought forth, as it doesn’t say much to have a one-sided indictment without at least an attempt at defense, and that being said I was hoping to discover at least a few problems with some of Mr. Hunt’s arguments. Honestly, I didn’t find many good points made. True, NASA is not out to discover intelligent extraterrestrial life and SETI is. However, NASA constantly releases press release after press release regarding their theories on the creation of the universe, planets, stars, and so on. One only has to open the BBC’s and CNN’s Science pages to find them.
Second, yes, as hard as it is to believe, there are “militant” atheists out there with an agenda involving the intent to eliminate religion, including, and often specifically, Christianity. Frankly, if you’d read more than the first chapter, the subsequent chapters would make this abundantly clear. Also, while it’s true that we haven’t checked, nor will we ever check every planetary body to prove there is absolutely no life anywhere else in our universe, there has never ever been any indication that it would ever be possible to create life where there was no life. Not in a supposed “primordial soup,” not in a lab, not on the bottom of your shoe. We haven’t even an inkling as to how life initially started, if it did “randomly” happen. Sure, there’s plenty of theories, just like everything else in evolution, but they are simply speculative theory and dreams of someone when it really comes down to it. Sure, they’re wonderfully complex and have all sorts of science-y names and explanations but to consider them fact? Come on. That’s simply abusing one’s position as a person who ought to be respected as one who seeks knowledge and understanding by objective observation and experimentation.
My last note is the flippant response you give towards your “existence.” When one actually considers the fact that if they are simply here because of some random chance, that they were not created with any purpose, that there are no eternal consequences for our choices and actions, that we are the sum of our chemicals, that this is the best it will ever get, then there is no reason to impose or even suggest any laws, morals, or ethics toward anyone. There is no more reason to kill than to love. There is no more reason to spend your life looking for hookers and blow than there is to donate your money to give a starving homeless kid some food and shelter. There would have no hope. There would be nothing to look forward to. Human life would be pointless. Your efforts would amount to nothing. It wouldn’t make any difference if you lived a full life, racked up accomplishment after accomplishment, gave all your money to the poor, solved world hunger, and found the cure for AIDS, or if you killed your whole family with a rusty spoon and put a bullet in your head to cap it all off. It wouldn’t matter. With that I say I’m so incredibly thankful it’s not like that. I’m so thankful that there is a God who loves us, despite that we’re so evil and corrupt (ALL of us, not just “those on the outside”). God, being just and holy, loved us enough to pay that penalty that we so justly deserve (how do you explain the concept of justice in a materialist world? what does it taste, smell, look like?) by dying for us on the cross so that we could be reconciled with Him, to give us life, hope, freedom, and purpose.
I suggest one last thing: read the rest of the book. Consider it. It’s very well researched, despite a few nit-picky flaws (what book doesn’t?). Give it an objective look again. Then write a review. One chapter doesn’t explain much. I’m looking forward to your response.
Karl Krause
> “First off, it’s nice to see some criticism and reaction online from an atheist who has at least picked up the book and read a little bit.”
I didn’t get too far in this book, but you can take a look at the “Case for Faith” review. While I still think Strobel doesn’t make a good case, I feel like he’s a step or two above Dave Hunt.
> “However, NASA constantly releases press release after press release regarding their theories on the creation of the universe, planets, stars, and so on. One only has to open the BBC’s and CNN’s Science pages to find them.”
I’m not sure about your point. Scientists work for NASA and scientists are fully convinced of evolution. This doesn’t mean that they are out to disprove the existence of God, or that anything that NASA does could disprove God. Also, there’s some scientists who believe both in God and evolution. I wouldn’t be surprised if half or more of the scientists working for NASA were Christians – yet, Dave Hunt would have us believe that NASA is involved in a conspiracy to disprove the existence of God.
What I find interesting is when Christians dismiss any possibility of life elsewhere. Recently, I read an article that a few centuries ago, Christians declared that there *must* be life on all the other planets in our solar system because “Why else would God create them?” This tendency towards armchair speculation based on religion, which is followed by a declaration that *this* or *that* must be true because the Christianity “says so” is a weird combination of ignorance and overconfidence.
By the way, here’s the article:
At this point, it seems like the current trend among Christians is to say there is no other life in the universe – and the only reason for saying so, seems to be that atheists believe there is life elsewhere and Christians have a kneejerk reaction to disagree with the atheist scientists. I’d bet money that if life was ever found elsewhere, Christians would do a very quick 180 and declare that “God created it; this means nothing; I’m not the least bit surprised”.
> “When one actually considers the fact that if they are simply here because of some random chance,…”
Well, I disagree with that on multiple levels. I disagree with your conclusion that nothing means anything without God, or that laws and morals are non-existent without God. And, even if I did agree with your beliefs about the meaninglessness of everything without God, it’s still not a good argument to convince me of God’s existence (it’s only an argument that I should delude myself into belief because I would be happier believing in God). In other words, if I had the choice between two beliefs: (1) My wife is cheating on me, or (2) My wife is faithful to me; I’m not going to decide that #2 is the truth simply because it’s a more pleasant belief. Rather, I’m going to look for evidence.
> “how do you explain the concept of justice in a materialist world? what does it taste, smell, look like?”
Wow. Most people just talk about “love” – as if “love” can’t exist in a materialist world because you can’t taste, touch, or smell it. I’m not even going to answer this question because you should be fully capable of answering it on your own.
Thanks for the reply. Ok, here goes:
>”I didn’t get too far in this book, but you can take a look at the “Case for Faith” review. While I still think Strobel doesn’t make a good case, I feel like he’s a step or two above Dave Hunt.”
I have read “Case for Faith” years ago but I can’t say I remember much of it. Again, if you still have Mr. Hunt’s book, keep reading it. I’d like to know your thoughts about the rest of the book.
>”I’m not sure about your point. Scientists work for NASA and scientists are fully convinced of evolution. This doesn’t mean that they are out to disprove the existence of God, or that anything that NASA does could disprove God. Also, there’s some scientists who believe both in God and evolution. I wouldn’t be surprised if half or more of the scientists working for NASA were Christians – yet, Dave Hunt would have us believe that NASA is involved in a conspiracy to disprove the existence of God.”
I understand your confusion as I used the term “creation” instead of “beginning” or some other term that doesn’t ring of creationism. Hopefully that clarifies my earlier point.
>”At this point, it seems like the current trend among Christians is to say there is no other life in the universe – and the only reason for saying so, seems to be that atheists believe there is life elsewhere and Christians have a kneejerk reaction to disagree with the atheist scientists. money that if life was ever found elsewhere, Christians would do a very quick 180 and declare that “God created it; this means nothing; I’m not the least bit surprised”.
I agree with your observation that there are Christians who tend to agree with whatever opposes atheists believe, but the same can be said for atheists who refuse to believe or even consider the evidence that suggests the existence of God for fear of agreeing with Christians/theists. What I will also say is that, were life to be found elsewhere in the universe, I don’t believe it would be a challenge to my faith. Would I be surprised? Absolutely. There were Christians who feared what it would mean in relation to their faith when it was discovered that the world wasn’t flat, the world wasn’t the center of the universe, and that there were other planets besides the Earth but there is nothing in the Scriptures to suggest otherwise. I don’t believe life will ever be found elsewhere but if it did, I think it would actually bolster my belief in God. When you consider the enormous improbability that life could even occur on one planet, it becomes insurmountable to believe that, by random chance, life could develop on another planet on its own. Google “the odds of life occurring on earth by chance” and it becomes quite clear how exceedingly improbable it is that life occurred without a Creator here on Earth, let alone on any other planets. There are many reputable and well-known scientists who’d agree.
>”Most people just talk about “love” – as if “love” can’t exist in a materialist world because you can’t taste, touch, or smell it. I’m not even going to answer this question because you should be fully capable of answering it on your own.”
In a materialist world, love means nothing. Love, justice, right, wrong, good, bad, these are all moral and philosophical qualities that have no place or purpose in a world devoid of God. I can tell you the qualities and limits of iron because they can be scientifically measured and falsified. You can’t scientifically measure the amount of justice in the world or how bad someone is because there is no way to measure these things. Morality becomes entirely subjective, and to murder becomes no different than to save a life. You become your own god, deciding what is right and what is wrong. It doesn’t matter if everyone on Earth agrees with you or not. Any philosophical, ethical, or moral concept cannot exist in a material world.
(BTW, I had to reply to my own comment above to get this comment to show up. To post a comment below this one, hit ‘reply’ on my earlier comment.)
> Google “the odds of life occurring on earth by chance” and it becomes quite clear how exceedingly improbable it is that life occurred without a Creator here on Earth, let alone on any other planets.
Well, I think their numbers are crap. I’ve seen way too much bad math thrown around by creationists to believe something like that, especially when they don’t even show how they came up with the number.
> “In a materialist world, love means nothing. Love, justice, right, wrong, good, bad, these are all moral and philosophical qualities that have no place or purpose in a world devoid of God. I can tell you the qualities and limits of iron because they can be scientifically measured and falsified. You can’t scientifically measure the amount of justice in the world or how bad someone is because there is no way to measure these things. Morality becomes entirely subjective, and to murder becomes no different than to save a life. You become your own god, deciding what is right and what is wrong. It doesn’t matter if everyone on Earth agrees with you or not. Any philosophical, ethical, or moral concept cannot exist in a material world.”
I’m actually trying to figure out your argument. You seem to be making two different arguments at the same time. The first is that we can’t talk about non-physical entities/concepts in a materialist world. Your second argument seems to be that some words (like morality) lack any clear definition in a Godless universe.
On the first point, if you believe references to non-physical entities is impossible in a materialist world, then you must also think emotions are impossible in a material universe. When you say that I “can’t scientifically measure the amount of justice in the world”, that’s not an argument for its non-existence in a purely material universe (since things can exist and be not measurable). For example, a “friendship” describes a relationship between two people. The fact that it can’t be scientifically measured does not allow you to conclude it doesn’t exist (even if you’re in a purely materialist universe). You can’t scientifically measure emotions such as “anger”, “depression”, “happiness”, or “hope”, either, but this doesn’t mean they can’t exist or are meaningless. I suspect that you’re mixing together your two arguments: the question of their existence in a material universe and the question of their value in a materialist universe. Saying ‘they can’t exist in a purely material worldview because they aren’t physical or scientifically measurable’ isn’t an argument that can be won.
Additionally, the existence of a deity in no way imbues these words with meaning or value. When you talk about God being “good” or “loving” what does those words mean and why do those things have value? I suppose they mean whatever God says they mean, but that transforms into a “might makes right” argument. Let’s say that God was acted like the Devil – he delights in causing pain to innocent people, he lies, cheats, and tortures for his own twisted amusement. Do the people he creates have to admire and value those things? Are those things “good” and we should seek to do those things as well? My point is that words like “good” have a meaning, and when we say “God is good” we have a definition in mind which means things like “helpful to others”. What this means is that there is a definition of that word that independent of God. If it didn’t have an independent definition, then a word like “good” would have no meaning other than “like what God does/wants us to do”, which is an argument for “might makes right”.
Under the “might makes right” thinking, there’s also no reason for us to value “goodness” (other than, perhaps, the hope that God will look favorably on us for doing what He’s doing). And, if God behaved like a devil, we’re suddenly supposed to value lying, cheating, and harming others? People created by evil gods could truthfully say things like “God is good” when God creates babies in order to torture them. So, all of these words *have* to have definitions independent of God or else those words are meaningless. The conclusion, then is this: once we have independent meanings for these words and we attach a value to them which is independent of God, then the existence or non-existence of God changes nothing about these words. (Of course, you can still argue that, without a divine policeman to punish bad and reward good, there’s less reason for doing good. Instead, we have to rely on things like intrinsic, social, and legal incentives to do good and avoid doing evil.)
Well said, Karl!
And well said, Tinyfrog! As for you, Karl, your religious belief is embarrassing to read! Hunt’s book – from what TF has shown us, and with Hunt’s well-known lunacy clearly apparent – I can only say that you have clearly been brainwashed since birth into this ludicrous notion of a fairy tale being up in the sky – without any evidence of it’s existence at all! All I can say is ‘Grow up’! Yes, this particular atheist hates christians – also moslems, mormons and any body who kisses the buddha’s bottom – because it’s INSANITY! THERE IS NO GOD!
Actually, that’s not quite right! I apologise! My wife’s a believer and I love her to bits. I have good friends who are believers, also. I just find it exasperating when I see intelligent people like TF being attacked by people like yourself who can’t see the obvious truth when it comes up and punches them on the nose! No god! No heaven! No hell! No afterlife. Evolution and cosmology work perfectly and that’s the end of it! For gods sake, study your science and chuck that bible in the bin where it belongs!
Boy shut up it real