What do you think?
Rate this book
The Atheist Who Didn't Exist: Or the dreadful consequences of bad arguments
"A breath, a gust, a positive whoosh of fresh air. Made me laugh, made me think, made me cry. " Adrian Plass
In the last decade, atheism has leapt from obscurity to the front producing best-selling books, making movies, and plastering adverts on the side of buses. There's an energy and a confidence to contemporary many people now assume that a godless scepticism is the default position, indeed the only position for anybody wishing to appear educated, contemporary, and urbane. Atheism is hip, religion is boring.
Yet when one pokes at popular atheism, many of the arguments used to prop it up quickly unravel. The Atheist Who Didn't Exist is designed to expose some of the loose threads on the cardigan of atheism, tug a little, and see what happens. Blending humour with serious thought, Andy Bannister helps the reader question everything, assume nothing and, above all, recognise lazy scepticism and bad arguments. Be an atheist by all but do be a thought-through one.
In the last decade, atheism has leapt from obscurity to the front producing best-selling books, making movies, and plastering adverts on the side of buses. There's an energy and a confidence to contemporary many people now assume that a godless scepticism is the default position, indeed the only position for anybody wishing to appear educated, contemporary, and urbane. Atheism is hip, religion is boring.
Yet when one pokes at popular atheism, many of the arguments used to prop it up quickly unravel. The Atheist Who Didn't Exist is designed to expose some of the loose threads on the cardigan of atheism, tug a little, and see what happens. Blending humour with serious thought, Andy Bannister helps the reader question everything, assume nothing and, above all, recognise lazy scepticism and bad arguments. Be an atheist by all but do be a thought-through one.
242 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 17, 2015
68 people are currently reading
724 people want to read
About the author
Andy Bannister
7 books161 followersAndy Bannister is the Director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity, speaking and teaching regularly throughout the UK, Europe, Canada, the USA, and the wider world. From universities to churches, business forums to TV and radio, Andy regularly addresses audiences of both Christians and those of all faiths and none on issues relating to faith, culture, politics and society.
Andy holds a PhD in Islamic studies and has taught extensively at universities across Canada, the USA, the UK and further afield on both Islam and philosophy. He is also an Adjunct Research Fellow at The Arthur Jeffery Centre for the Study of Islam at Melbourne School of Theology and also Adjunct Faculty at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto.
Among Andy's various books and publications are:
* Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God? — a popular, witty, and engaging look at this vital question
* The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist (or: The Dreadful Consequences of Really Bad Arguments) — a very funny (but also quite serious) engagement with the New Atheism
* Healthy Faith and the Coronavirus Crisis — I wrote a chapter in this multi-author volume looking at how we can engage in evangelism even in an age of lockdown
* Heroes: Five Lessons From Whose Lives We Can Learn — an exciting and fast-moving looking at the lives of five incredible giants of the Christian faith
* An Oral-Formulaic Study of the Qur’an — a groundbreaking and innovative study that reveals many of the ways the Qur’an was first composed
* Burning Questions — a Canadian TV documentary exploring six big questions about God, faith, and Christianity
When not travelling, speaking, or writing, Andy is a keen hiker, mountain climber and photographer. Andy is married to Astrid and they have two children, Caitriona and Christopher.
Andy holds a PhD in Islamic studies and has taught extensively at universities across Canada, the USA, the UK and further afield on both Islam and philosophy. He is also an Adjunct Research Fellow at The Arthur Jeffery Centre for the Study of Islam at Melbourne School of Theology and also Adjunct Faculty at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto.
Among Andy's various books and publications are:
* Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God? — a popular, witty, and engaging look at this vital question
* The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist (or: The Dreadful Consequences of Really Bad Arguments) — a very funny (but also quite serious) engagement with the New Atheism
* Healthy Faith and the Coronavirus Crisis — I wrote a chapter in this multi-author volume looking at how we can engage in evangelism even in an age of lockdown
* Heroes: Five Lessons From Whose Lives We Can Learn — an exciting and fast-moving looking at the lives of five incredible giants of the Christian faith
* An Oral-Formulaic Study of the Qur’an — a groundbreaking and innovative study that reveals many of the ways the Qur’an was first composed
* Burning Questions — a Canadian TV documentary exploring six big questions about God, faith, and Christianity
When not travelling, speaking, or writing, Andy is a keen hiker, mountain climber and photographer. Andy is married to Astrid and they have two children, Caitriona and Christopher.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 95 reviews
September 12, 2015
I like Christian apologetics book as much as the next guy which means not a whole lot. I do like the idea of them. A reasoned, rational defense of Christian truth is a great idea--something that answers questions and addresses difficulties can be very helpful. But let's be honest, most apologetic works suffer from some serious defects. A few are overly simple and don't really offer more than trite answers to tough questions. Some books are just dry and boring. Rare is an apologetics book that answers questions well while remaining entertaining.
The Atheist Who Didn't Exist or: the Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments by Andy Bannister is both highly entertaining and thoughtful. Bannister is the Canadian Director for RZIM. Hailing from the UK, his prose is full of British wit, humorous asides and puns. It is rare to read a book where the footnotes are this funny. Bannister takes on the rhetoric of the so-called New Atheists, exposing bad argumentation, false claims, overstatements made by these antagonistic unbelievers. Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and the Derek Zoolander of New Atheists, Sam Harris, are all skewered by Bannister's masterful wit. He also endeared himself to me by taking several cheap shots at the Toronto Maple Leafs (the NHL team in his adopted city). I haven't read an apologetic book this entertaining since Randal Rauser's The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetics Rabbit Trails.
Each chapter begins with a humorous story (most often a bit fiction) which highlights significant issues with these Atheist's arguments. Bannister then goes on to make some serious points about :what constitutes a good argument, the saneness of Christian belief, the reason why not all gods are the same, the problem with psychological arguments against God, why religion doesn't poison everything, the limits of science's explanatory power, the necessity of God to underscore morality and meaning, why everyone has faith and our reliable knowledge of Jesus. I doubt seriously he would win many converts from died-in-the-wool-atheists, but Bannister certainly demonstrates the warrant for Christian belief.
Bannister focuses on the New Atheists, though some of what he writes applies to 'Old Atheism' as well (he peppers his prose with occasional references to Bertrand Russel and others). What sets the New Atheists apart from the old, is the vitriol they direct at religion and faith. They don't describe religious people as wrong or misguided. They see us as evil. While their arguments against God are not always the most philosophically sophisticated, I've spent enough time on college campuses to hear Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris described as intellectual heroes from bright young people. Bannister does a good job of showing some of the places where their arguments are more flash than substance.
However this book doesn't tackle every issue. One of the stickier points for some unbelievers is God's track record. Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens point to the Canaanite Conquest and some troublesome stories in the Bible and posit that the God of the Bible is a 'moral monster.' Bannister doesn't explore this issue or theodicy (the problem of evil) in any great depth and yet I think that this is the major issue for many people today. This signals the limits of this volume. A skeptic may follow and appreciate Bannister's points and still come away with their principle objections untouched.
But for an entertaining and thoughtful romp and critique of New Atheism this is well worth reading. I give it four stars.
Notice of Material Connection: I received this book from Monarch Books and Kregel Publications in exchange for my honest review.
The Atheist Who Didn't Exist or: the Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments by Andy Bannister is both highly entertaining and thoughtful. Bannister is the Canadian Director for RZIM. Hailing from the UK, his prose is full of British wit, humorous asides and puns. It is rare to read a book where the footnotes are this funny. Bannister takes on the rhetoric of the so-called New Atheists, exposing bad argumentation, false claims, overstatements made by these antagonistic unbelievers. Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and the Derek Zoolander of New Atheists, Sam Harris, are all skewered by Bannister's masterful wit. He also endeared himself to me by taking several cheap shots at the Toronto Maple Leafs (the NHL team in his adopted city). I haven't read an apologetic book this entertaining since Randal Rauser's The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetics Rabbit Trails.
Each chapter begins with a humorous story (most often a bit fiction) which highlights significant issues with these Atheist's arguments. Bannister then goes on to make some serious points about :what constitutes a good argument, the saneness of Christian belief, the reason why not all gods are the same, the problem with psychological arguments against God, why religion doesn't poison everything, the limits of science's explanatory power, the necessity of God to underscore morality and meaning, why everyone has faith and our reliable knowledge of Jesus. I doubt seriously he would win many converts from died-in-the-wool-atheists, but Bannister certainly demonstrates the warrant for Christian belief.
Bannister focuses on the New Atheists, though some of what he writes applies to 'Old Atheism' as well (he peppers his prose with occasional references to Bertrand Russel and others). What sets the New Atheists apart from the old, is the vitriol they direct at religion and faith. They don't describe religious people as wrong or misguided. They see us as evil. While their arguments against God are not always the most philosophically sophisticated, I've spent enough time on college campuses to hear Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris described as intellectual heroes from bright young people. Bannister does a good job of showing some of the places where their arguments are more flash than substance.
However this book doesn't tackle every issue. One of the stickier points for some unbelievers is God's track record. Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens point to the Canaanite Conquest and some troublesome stories in the Bible and posit that the God of the Bible is a 'moral monster.' Bannister doesn't explore this issue or theodicy (the problem of evil) in any great depth and yet I think that this is the major issue for many people today. This signals the limits of this volume. A skeptic may follow and appreciate Bannister's points and still come away with their principle objections untouched.
But for an entertaining and thoughtful romp and critique of New Atheism this is well worth reading. I give it four stars.
Notice of Material Connection: I received this book from Monarch Books and Kregel Publications in exchange for my honest review.
June 3, 2016
Ths book was so much fun. It was not typical apologetics. He did not make a case for God, a young earth, etc, etc, but instead, takes on the soundbites of new atheism with humor, humor, and more humor (I recall no instances of ad hominem humor). In fact, the humor was almost distracting. Still, definitely worth reading.
Taking on the soundbites of "new atheism" limited the scope of the book. He did not address some of the more problematic topics of apologetics (evil, for example) very deeply. However, I think this book is still very valuable. These blurbs are what the masses seem to latch on to without much thought. Andy made it clear that the purpose of the book was to invite skeptics and atheists alike to consider their position, to look beyond the bitter philippics of Richard Dawkins and the like. If the evidence and thoughts supporting theism are given careful consideration, and atheism still makes the most sense, then by all means, be an atheist.
PS-If you do pick up this book, be sure to check all footnotes. :-)
Taking on the soundbites of "new atheism" limited the scope of the book. He did not address some of the more problematic topics of apologetics (evil, for example) very deeply. However, I think this book is still very valuable. These blurbs are what the masses seem to latch on to without much thought. Andy made it clear that the purpose of the book was to invite skeptics and atheists alike to consider their position, to look beyond the bitter philippics of Richard Dawkins and the like. If the evidence and thoughts supporting theism are given careful consideration, and atheism still makes the most sense, then by all means, be an atheist.
PS-If you do pick up this book, be sure to check all footnotes. :-)
September 18, 2015
This book, is if nothing else, hilarious; and that is no small point. Given our entertainment saturated, simple sound-bite thinking culture, this book might actually attract people to read an apologetic book. I would recommend this book also because it deals with the popular objections of the New Atheists that many philosophical and rigorous works ignore (because they are so bad) such as: "We just believe in one less God than you ..." "We don't believe in fairies, santa, etc" ... or "Athiesm is a lack of a belief." These soundbites need to be put down to advance clearer thinking, and Bannister does a great job doing it. Recommended highly.
April 2, 2016
As Apologetic as this book is...
I got to label it as a Comedy book ALSO - because this tale is pure comic gold. I'm surprised atheists like Douglas Adams and Christopher Moore don't/didn't realize how funny Atheism can be? (actually, those two may be the leaders in that bit of enlightenment). If nothing else, this offering proves Richard Dawkins has no sense of humor (or logical arguments for his cause).
The subtitle of Andy's book is the foundation:
"The Atheist Who Didn't Exist - OR: the Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments"
So indeed, this is really about the bad arguments Atheists try to slyly/arrogantly force on the world. Sadly, most people shy away or simply give-up and let them assume a win. Thankfully we have chaps like "ANDY" who simply will not let that happen, or let an applicable joke not see the light of day and reach out to SLAP a new-atheist.
Hopefully nobody dares to read this without following the footnotes on the bottom of each page. That is the heart of this offering. When you are done this - you'll have no reason to take Andy out to Starbucks: you will have heard ALL of his funnies. Imagine being his wife?
I read lots of this in bed (with my wife playing some Iphone Bubble-game beside me). She had to keep asking me why I was laughing so much. So now that i'm finished - She can read it.
______________________________
So what exactly is Andy trying to prove here?
WELL, a lot more than just the Lochness Monster having a moustache. He gets to the core of atheistic arguments.
If you've spent even 10 minutes on the net arguing with atheists - then you can see how Andy has hit the nail on the head. For instance: the ever THRUST OUT argument that atheism is not a belief system. Andy proves it is that and more. It even has its own religious core attached to it - we call it Scientism (it is the altar that atheists worship at and the god they bow to.) the funniest part is that this ATHEISTIC DEITY is never to be questioned or challenged...but blindly submitted to.
Then Andy moves on to the lazy religious understandings that MOST atheists have towards gods. Some atheists are so busy "hating" that they never bothered to look up any facts (outside of the Zeitgeist movie of course. Every atheist bought an extra-large Popcorn bucket to get through that bit of salty-manure.)
Like unknown luxury vacation spots: be sure to do more than just read the brochure pamphlet before buying into it. Sadly (again...) most atheists are quick to assume all gods are equally unworthy of their academic appreciations. This just proves they haven't done their homework. (I do hear there's a Zeitgeist part 2...)
The Santa Delusion may be my favorite chapter. (ch. 4)
Are Christians insane? No more than Andy is. But at least we've honestly spent a lifetime going through the evidence. (YES, the Bible counts as evidence.) Atheists hate when that gets mentioned.
The rest of the book takes a philosophical and scientific look at the merits FOR Christianity and AGAINST Atheism. Basically under these headings:
Why we really can know a lot about Jesus.
Why everybody has faith.
Why we really do need God to be good.
Why science cannot explain the entirety of reality.
Why religion doesn't poison everything.
I call this an Apologetic Comedy book - but really it's a modern philosophical masterpiece for beginners.
The end of every chapter has a list of required reading recommended by Andy. I insist every thinking Christian get out and BUY this book - just so they can have a list of the OTHER books. Andy would agree, but in a different order.
I got to label it as a Comedy book ALSO - because this tale is pure comic gold. I'm surprised atheists like Douglas Adams and Christopher Moore don't/didn't realize how funny Atheism can be? (actually, those two may be the leaders in that bit of enlightenment). If nothing else, this offering proves Richard Dawkins has no sense of humor (or logical arguments for his cause).
The subtitle of Andy's book is the foundation:
"The Atheist Who Didn't Exist - OR: the Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments"
So indeed, this is really about the bad arguments Atheists try to slyly/arrogantly force on the world. Sadly, most people shy away or simply give-up and let them assume a win. Thankfully we have chaps like "ANDY" who simply will not let that happen, or let an applicable joke not see the light of day and reach out to SLAP a new-atheist.
Hopefully nobody dares to read this without following the footnotes on the bottom of each page. That is the heart of this offering. When you are done this - you'll have no reason to take Andy out to Starbucks: you will have heard ALL of his funnies. Imagine being his wife?
I read lots of this in bed (with my wife playing some Iphone Bubble-game beside me). She had to keep asking me why I was laughing so much. So now that i'm finished - She can read it.
______________________________
So what exactly is Andy trying to prove here?
WELL, a lot more than just the Lochness Monster having a moustache. He gets to the core of atheistic arguments.
If you've spent even 10 minutes on the net arguing with atheists - then you can see how Andy has hit the nail on the head. For instance: the ever THRUST OUT argument that atheism is not a belief system. Andy proves it is that and more. It even has its own religious core attached to it - we call it Scientism (it is the altar that atheists worship at and the god they bow to.) the funniest part is that this ATHEISTIC DEITY is never to be questioned or challenged...but blindly submitted to.
Then Andy moves on to the lazy religious understandings that MOST atheists have towards gods. Some atheists are so busy "hating" that they never bothered to look up any facts (outside of the Zeitgeist movie of course. Every atheist bought an extra-large Popcorn bucket to get through that bit of salty-manure.)
Like unknown luxury vacation spots: be sure to do more than just read the brochure pamphlet before buying into it. Sadly (again...) most atheists are quick to assume all gods are equally unworthy of their academic appreciations. This just proves they haven't done their homework. (I do hear there's a Zeitgeist part 2...)
The Santa Delusion may be my favorite chapter. (ch. 4)
Are Christians insane? No more than Andy is. But at least we've honestly spent a lifetime going through the evidence. (YES, the Bible counts as evidence.) Atheists hate when that gets mentioned.
The rest of the book takes a philosophical and scientific look at the merits FOR Christianity and AGAINST Atheism. Basically under these headings:
Why we really can know a lot about Jesus.
Why everybody has faith.
Why we really do need God to be good.
Why science cannot explain the entirety of reality.
Why religion doesn't poison everything.
I call this an Apologetic Comedy book - but really it's a modern philosophical masterpiece for beginners.
The end of every chapter has a list of required reading recommended by Andy. I insist every thinking Christian get out and BUY this book - just so they can have a list of the OTHER books. Andy would agree, but in a different order.
July 23, 2016
Andy enjoys reading Pratchett and Adams. He has the same sense of humour, so I had to keep looking up his footnotes (e.g., "The English specialise in inventing sports and then getting beaten by the rest of the world in them. I like to think this displays not so much a lack of sporting prowess as modesty; we like to give other nations a chance." "The origin of the specious"). Having said that, Bannister's analysis of the arguments presented by the "New Atheists" is really clear. I mean that. If you've never worked through the implications of what atheists claim to believe (the faith of an atheist?), then Bannister will help you do just that, and in a memorable way. Loved his illustrative stories - "The Santa Delusion", "Sven and the art of refrigerator maintenance", "Humpty Dumpty and the Vegan" - Bannister takes philosophical meanderings and makes them enjoyable and educational. I just wish I could think of an alphabetical list of superlatives for this book.
July 31, 2015
I had hoped this book would contain some real insights into some of the poor arguments seen between christian and atheist. It does do this but not in the way it intends!
Straw-men abound regarding "atheism" (quotes intentional) so giving the impression that atheistic arguments are being refuted logically when in fact they're poor approximations which are not analogous. For example, the loch ness monster section is laughable and not comparable with the real world example. As far as I'm aware there is no church of the loch ness monster or any adherents who believe that the monster will send them to hell for disbelief. Also, the author homes in on the word "enjoy" then rambles on into a diatribe about the state of society and commercialism (which I don't necessarily disagree in itself) but it's a convoluted route used to imply that atheists effectively "...flit merrily from one experience to another in an effervescence of ecstatic enjoyment" which is, at best, a grossly ignorant generalisation.
Another poor example was the hippo one. Stating that "there are hippos in my bath" is a positive claim requiring evidence but stating that "there are no hippos in my bath" would also require evidence. Thankfully, we can prove this simple example as human beings exist outside of the bath and so able to ascertain the presence or absence of hippos within the bath. (Given certain assumptions as to what we define as a "hippo" and what are the physical limits of the bath) The atheist analogy (i.e. the null claim) would be to say "I have no idea if there are hippos in my bath or not". Evidence would then be gathered and a decision made. This is why atheism is the default position on the existence of a god/gods. Atheism makes no other claims about anything else either.
Poor definitions are also rife. For example, quoting from Page 17
"For atheists like Richard Dawkins, God does not exist, right? That, after all, is what the very term "a-theist" means."
This definition is repeatedly drawn upon even though it's incorrect. Just because Richard Dawkins is an atheist and then makes the claim that "God does not exist" does not mean that all atheists believe "God does not exist". If the definition of an atheist was someone who made the claim "there is no god" then I would agree that the arguments presented would be true but as atheism makes no claims regarding the existence or lack of existence of god many of the arguments within this book unravel. The prefix "a-" very simply means "absence of" so illustrating an atheist's absence of any claims relating to a god/gods.
Overall I was disappointed in hearing the same old poor arguments that christians have used over the years to "prove" that there is a god and to "prove that atheists are wrong". Maybe the title is referring to the "strawman atheist" used within the book? He indeed does not exist...
That said, the writing style was engaging with anecdotes to draw in the reader. The arguments seem well made and coherent but with a little thought do not stand up to scrutiny.
Straw-men abound regarding "atheism" (quotes intentional) so giving the impression that atheistic arguments are being refuted logically when in fact they're poor approximations which are not analogous. For example, the loch ness monster section is laughable and not comparable with the real world example. As far as I'm aware there is no church of the loch ness monster or any adherents who believe that the monster will send them to hell for disbelief. Also, the author homes in on the word "enjoy" then rambles on into a diatribe about the state of society and commercialism (which I don't necessarily disagree in itself) but it's a convoluted route used to imply that atheists effectively "...flit merrily from one experience to another in an effervescence of ecstatic enjoyment" which is, at best, a grossly ignorant generalisation.
Another poor example was the hippo one. Stating that "there are hippos in my bath" is a positive claim requiring evidence but stating that "there are no hippos in my bath" would also require evidence. Thankfully, we can prove this simple example as human beings exist outside of the bath and so able to ascertain the presence or absence of hippos within the bath. (Given certain assumptions as to what we define as a "hippo" and what are the physical limits of the bath) The atheist analogy (i.e. the null claim) would be to say "I have no idea if there are hippos in my bath or not". Evidence would then be gathered and a decision made. This is why atheism is the default position on the existence of a god/gods. Atheism makes no other claims about anything else either.
Poor definitions are also rife. For example, quoting from Page 17
"For atheists like Richard Dawkins, God does not exist, right? That, after all, is what the very term "a-theist" means."
This definition is repeatedly drawn upon even though it's incorrect. Just because Richard Dawkins is an atheist and then makes the claim that "God does not exist" does not mean that all atheists believe "God does not exist". If the definition of an atheist was someone who made the claim "there is no god" then I would agree that the arguments presented would be true but as atheism makes no claims regarding the existence or lack of existence of god many of the arguments within this book unravel. The prefix "a-" very simply means "absence of" so illustrating an atheist's absence of any claims relating to a god/gods.
Overall I was disappointed in hearing the same old poor arguments that christians have used over the years to "prove" that there is a god and to "prove that atheists are wrong". Maybe the title is referring to the "strawman atheist" used within the book? He indeed does not exist...
That said, the writing style was engaging with anecdotes to draw in the reader. The arguments seem well made and coherent but with a little thought do not stand up to scrutiny.
September 12, 2016
This book is both hilarious in a British humor sort of way and hard hitting. It is respectful to atheists, yet challenges some of their most popular slogan arguments.
April 6, 2024
Veldig god bok! Vittig uten å være try-hard, velformulert og kreativ. Dessverre leste jeg den 10 år for sent. Ny-ateistene har fullstendig mistet innflytelse og det er sjelden vi hører en resirkulering av deres gamle argumenter lengre.
July 17, 2015
Sometimes the humor was a little overboard, but I really enjoyed this. Applying the logic to novel situations really helps show how absurd some of the logic used by New Atheism really is.
January 10, 2018
“The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist” by Andy Bannister, is easy to read, easy to understand, is funny, entertaining & very informative. The book presents several pet arguments often used by the new atheists to call into question the existence of God, the deity of Christ etc. by using silly, absurd fictitious stories the author demonstrates the absurdity of the new atheists argument, then systematically he establishes why the argument is poor & then presents a well laid argument to the contrary. Andy Bannister deals with a lot of the sound-bite arguments that we deal with in our culture such as "You are an atheist with regards to many gods. I just go one god further." He deals with scientism & what faith is & can we be good without God & can we really know anything about the historical Jesus?
This is a great book to read out loud with your middle school aged & /or high school aged kids. This book will help you to teach your kids how to think about, & think through the things people say & arguments people use when discussing god, religion etc. Don’t just give them the book hoping they’ll read it, read it with them & talk with them about each chapter, take it slow, it will be worth your time. You may well save them from the intellectual bullying that often takes place on school campuses.
This is a great book to read out loud with your middle school aged & /or high school aged kids. This book will help you to teach your kids how to think about, & think through the things people say & arguments people use when discussing god, religion etc. Don’t just give them the book hoping they’ll read it, read it with them & talk with them about each chapter, take it slow, it will be worth your time. You may well save them from the intellectual bullying that often takes place on school campuses.
September 10, 2015
The Atheist Who Didn't Exist
Or the Dreadful Consequences
of Bad Arguments
By Andy Bannister
The Atheist Who Didn't Exist is an intriguing and rather amusing look at the off the wall arguments that are used to justify personal beliefs. In the case of this book the arguments to justify not believing in God are examined. What can seem, on the surface, like a profoundly intelligent argument can in fact be a bunch of confusing word play.
Atheists don't believe God is dead, rather He never existed and the New Atheist movement has some interesting arguments to backup this belief. What is a "New Atheist" you ask - well this is a small group of media savvy Atheists who have taken to attacking all religions and Christianity in particular with books that have an angry and confrontational tone.
Some of the arguments presented are an attempt to ridicule one into thinking that only the uneducated person could believe in such an impossible myth. After all God was merely a crutch to create rules and guidelines that individuals were forced against their will to adhere to.
This book questions the foundations that Atheism bases its beliefs on. Belief in non-belief is powerful draw to many today who are searching for meaning while trying to exclude God from ALL aspects of life. I found the chapter "Humpty Dumpty and the Vegan" to be quite amusing. The vegan friend's argument that he was a liberal vegan was rather humorous while at the same time sad as many use the same type of arguments to reject God. In essence the vegan's justification in eating meat was he that he would determine for himself what the term vegan meant for him.
All too often this same argument is used to define good and evil. Who or what is the definer of good and evil when we reject God. Without God how can there be a measure to justify or vilify any one person or groups actions?
This book is a plea with all people to think and to ponder what they believe. Do you believe in God? A higher being? Or your own-self? Then question is Why do you believe? Is it something you thought through? Or were you just following along with others and not truly making the decision for yourself?
This is a book that will make one think, which is after all the author's intention in writing it. This would make for an interesting book club selection and I would love to hear the various readers and their individual takes on the book. Atheist or Christian there is much food for thought in this book whether or not you agree with the author's views.
I was provided a copy of this book by the publisher through the Kregel reviewer program in exchange for my honest review.
Or the Dreadful Consequences
of Bad Arguments
By Andy Bannister
The Atheist Who Didn't Exist is an intriguing and rather amusing look at the off the wall arguments that are used to justify personal beliefs. In the case of this book the arguments to justify not believing in God are examined. What can seem, on the surface, like a profoundly intelligent argument can in fact be a bunch of confusing word play.
Atheists don't believe God is dead, rather He never existed and the New Atheist movement has some interesting arguments to backup this belief. What is a "New Atheist" you ask - well this is a small group of media savvy Atheists who have taken to attacking all religions and Christianity in particular with books that have an angry and confrontational tone.
Some of the arguments presented are an attempt to ridicule one into thinking that only the uneducated person could believe in such an impossible myth. After all God was merely a crutch to create rules and guidelines that individuals were forced against their will to adhere to.
This book questions the foundations that Atheism bases its beliefs on. Belief in non-belief is powerful draw to many today who are searching for meaning while trying to exclude God from ALL aspects of life. I found the chapter "Humpty Dumpty and the Vegan" to be quite amusing. The vegan friend's argument that he was a liberal vegan was rather humorous while at the same time sad as many use the same type of arguments to reject God. In essence the vegan's justification in eating meat was he that he would determine for himself what the term vegan meant for him.
All too often this same argument is used to define good and evil. Who or what is the definer of good and evil when we reject God. Without God how can there be a measure to justify or vilify any one person or groups actions?
This book is a plea with all people to think and to ponder what they believe. Do you believe in God? A higher being? Or your own-self? Then question is Why do you believe? Is it something you thought through? Or were you just following along with others and not truly making the decision for yourself?
This is a book that will make one think, which is after all the author's intention in writing it. This would make for an interesting book club selection and I would love to hear the various readers and their individual takes on the book. Atheist or Christian there is much food for thought in this book whether or not you agree with the author's views.
I was provided a copy of this book by the publisher through the Kregel reviewer program in exchange for my honest review.
March 18, 2016
What an enjoyable and informative read. Andy tackles some of the bad arguments against belief in God (that are so common in today's culture thanks to the New Atheist movement) in a humorous but still serious way. Some of them include: atheism isn't a belief system, all gods/religions are the same, believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus, religion is a psychological crutch, religion poisons everything, science is the only way to know truth/reality, you can be good/moral without God, you can create meaning for yourself, you don't need faith (only the foolish have faith), history is unreliable and of course, Jesus didn't exist. If you have used any of these arguments or agree with them, you should give this book a read.
This isn't a book to attack good arguments that atheists present (and those are issues believers wrestle with as well) but it's meant to encourage atheists from making bad and lazy arguments...to think critically of one's unbelief. There's been a lot of sound bites from popular atheists that may sound great but when you look at them critically, they have no real logic behind them.
This isn't a book to attack good arguments that atheists present (and those are issues believers wrestle with as well) but it's meant to encourage atheists from making bad and lazy arguments...to think critically of one's unbelief. There's been a lot of sound bites from popular atheists that may sound great but when you look at them critically, they have no real logic behind them.
September 7, 2015
This is an excellent book. Bannister does not attempt to prove that God exists. Rather, he looks at the arguments that He does not exist and tests their validity. He has us think through them, showing many to be absurd. He takes other arguments and turns them around or uses them in another setting to show they are not valid. Through all of this Bannister inserts some of his quirky humor. It serves the purpose to lighten up a bit this book on a serious subject. I recommend this book to atheists and Christians alike. Atheists will be able to identify poor arguments and come to the dialog with better thinking. Christians who have been intimidated by the very vocal and forceful new atheists will find out how inadequate many of their arguments are.
You can read my complete review at http://bit.ly/1Uxf8Uo.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for the purpose of an independent and honest review.
You can read my complete review at http://bit.ly/1Uxf8Uo.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for the purpose of an independent and honest review.
December 31, 2015
When I saw this book had a forward by Ravi Zacharias I knew I wanted to read this, and was not disappointed.
What a remarkable gift and talent Andy Bannister possesses, such a quick wit and enjoyable read. Each chapter contains a story and his points are filled with chuckles and humor. While not everyone enjoys this type humor his points are right on, and we all know that atheists would not exist without Christians.
I have always wanted some comeback to address people who attack my Christian faith, and reading through this book, chapter by chapter there are lots of logical facts that place the shoe on the other foot. I recommend this book, you won’t be disappointed and you just might gain a wealth of information.
I received this book through Kregel Publishing Blogger Tour, and was not required to give a positive review.
What a remarkable gift and talent Andy Bannister possesses, such a quick wit and enjoyable read. Each chapter contains a story and his points are filled with chuckles and humor. While not everyone enjoys this type humor his points are right on, and we all know that atheists would not exist without Christians.
I have always wanted some comeback to address people who attack my Christian faith, and reading through this book, chapter by chapter there are lots of logical facts that place the shoe on the other foot. I recommend this book, you won’t be disappointed and you just might gain a wealth of information.
I received this book through Kregel Publishing Blogger Tour, and was not required to give a positive review.
April 2, 2023
Loved this book by the ever-reassuring Andy Bannister. With great humour and helpful illustration, Bannister pulls the rug from under the atheist’s feet, revealing the weakness of the floor on which they stand. Through defending truth and reason, Bannister leads the atheist to a clearer picture of what atheism is as he compares it to Christianity, showing how atheists, by-and-large, also have a “type of faith”(just not a saving one!). This book is a helpful for response to new-atheist discourses, largely concentrated in Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”. In hindsight, I probably would have got more out of this book had I read “The God Delusion” as a warm-up, to familiarise myself with how many Dawkinsesque atheists really think. I would recommend this book to a firmly-grounded atheist, or Christian alike. You’ll probably learn that we are more similar than you think, yet poles apart in where we are going and how we live life!
August 19, 2017
This is probably one of the few books that I'd recommend you'd read just for the footnotes!! (They're hilarious!) Who says apologetics has to be dry and boring?!?
Dr. Bannister's wit and sharp mind are a delight to read in his words... his arguments are compelling and thought-provoking... and the book is a great read for anyone wanting to learn more about apologetics to atheists, or is an atheist seeking a good introduction to the other side of the argument. If you enjoy some good ole cheeky British humour (all in good taste and fun though), and are open to hear his points and see how he engages the other side in a candid and lively way, then this will be a great book to get!
You can read my full review here if you're interested: http://tinyurl.com/y848m4hg
Dr. Bannister's wit and sharp mind are a delight to read in his words... his arguments are compelling and thought-provoking... and the book is a great read for anyone wanting to learn more about apologetics to atheists, or is an atheist seeking a good introduction to the other side of the argument. If you enjoy some good ole cheeky British humour (all in good taste and fun though), and are open to hear his points and see how he engages the other side in a candid and lively way, then this will be a great book to get!
You can read my full review here if you're interested: http://tinyurl.com/y848m4hg
September 8, 2015
The Atheist Who Didn't Exist is a new book by Andy Bannister, Canadian Director of RZIM. It is a book which is intended to expose the logical fallacies in the arguments used by New Atheism. For those unfamiliar with New Atheism, it is a movement which arose around 2004 as a sort of atheistic fundamentalism and by most accounts appears to be waning in popularity. It was characterized by aggressive ad hominems, religious zeal and an unprecedented proselytizing.
In this book, Bannister counters the arguments of New Atheism by exposing the logical errors in the arguments. As the book description says,
. . . when one pokes at popular atheism, many of the arguments used to prop it up quickly unravel. The Atheist Who Didn't Exist is designed to expose some of the lose threads on the cardigan of atheism, tug a little, and see what happens. Blending humour with serious thought, Andy Bannister helps the reader question everything, assume nothing and, above all, recognize lazy skepticism and bad arguments.
Overall the book delivered what it promised. Bannister certainly has an understanding of logical fallacies and is very adept at communicating the reason why an argument should be categorized as a fallacy. This is not only true of the individual arguments used by popular atheists but it's also true of their greater body of works. What Bannister excels at is demonstrating that the entire house upon which New Atheism is built upon is very shaky ground. Their arguments generally avoid the rigorous research and in depth analysis of the classical atheists and rely mostly upon sound bytes which don't penetrate the intellectual foundation of theism. Bannister systematically demonstrates this with each argument until the reader is left wondering what else is left in the atheistic arsenal.
The weakness of this book is its over-saturation of humor. I'm not against using humor in apologetics. In fact humor can be a very effective tool when addressing the weaknesses of a person's arguments. As long as it isn't an ad hominem attack it can help to deflate an escalating tension between two people. However, humor should be used sparingly and strategically. I came away from this book really believing that Banister is a wonderful communicator and a skilled logician; but a lot of this was lost due the the unfortunate timing of witty quips. I'm not saying that Bannister isn't funny. He has a wonderful sense humor and uses it to demonstrate the irony. It was simply too saturated.
Excessive humor aside, I would recommend this book to anyone who has found themselves stumped by the arguments of the New Atheists. I would also recommend it for those who innately recognize the logical fallacies of popular atheism but aren't quite sure how to best communicate it to others. Bannister is someone who we can all learn from when it comes to his ability to effectively illustrate why a poor argument is so poor. It is this attribute of Bannister's writing which makes this book so valuable and so effective. We can all learn from his communication style. I certainly have and consider myself to be a better communicator because of it.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Kregel Publications in exchange for an online review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255: "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising."
In this book, Bannister counters the arguments of New Atheism by exposing the logical errors in the arguments. As the book description says,
. . . when one pokes at popular atheism, many of the arguments used to prop it up quickly unravel. The Atheist Who Didn't Exist is designed to expose some of the lose threads on the cardigan of atheism, tug a little, and see what happens. Blending humour with serious thought, Andy Bannister helps the reader question everything, assume nothing and, above all, recognize lazy skepticism and bad arguments.
Overall the book delivered what it promised. Bannister certainly has an understanding of logical fallacies and is very adept at communicating the reason why an argument should be categorized as a fallacy. This is not only true of the individual arguments used by popular atheists but it's also true of their greater body of works. What Bannister excels at is demonstrating that the entire house upon which New Atheism is built upon is very shaky ground. Their arguments generally avoid the rigorous research and in depth analysis of the classical atheists and rely mostly upon sound bytes which don't penetrate the intellectual foundation of theism. Bannister systematically demonstrates this with each argument until the reader is left wondering what else is left in the atheistic arsenal.
The weakness of this book is its over-saturation of humor. I'm not against using humor in apologetics. In fact humor can be a very effective tool when addressing the weaknesses of a person's arguments. As long as it isn't an ad hominem attack it can help to deflate an escalating tension between two people. However, humor should be used sparingly and strategically. I came away from this book really believing that Banister is a wonderful communicator and a skilled logician; but a lot of this was lost due the the unfortunate timing of witty quips. I'm not saying that Bannister isn't funny. He has a wonderful sense humor and uses it to demonstrate the irony. It was simply too saturated.
Excessive humor aside, I would recommend this book to anyone who has found themselves stumped by the arguments of the New Atheists. I would also recommend it for those who innately recognize the logical fallacies of popular atheism but aren't quite sure how to best communicate it to others. Bannister is someone who we can all learn from when it comes to his ability to effectively illustrate why a poor argument is so poor. It is this attribute of Bannister's writing which makes this book so valuable and so effective. We can all learn from his communication style. I certainly have and consider myself to be a better communicator because of it.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Kregel Publications in exchange for an online review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255: "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising."
July 31, 2015
"The Atheist Who Didn't Exist" is a Christian apologetics book. The purpose is to point out the problems with 'bad argument' sound bits for atheism so that Christians and Atheists can carry on a more thoughtful dialogue. The author took an atheist claim and rephrased it in another context so that it was easier to see how the argument held up. He started each chapter with a silly story that illustrated the argument in the new context, then he explained why it isn't a good argument.
I think he did a good job of showing why the arguments don't work. However, I can't use his stories to make a similar argument since he personalized them. I'd have to think a while to figure out how to explain his argument to someone else (which may be a good thing).
The author's humor won't be for everyone. It's mainly teasing about things few Americans have any stake in (like English sports teams that don't do well). However, the author sometimes went beyond silly stories and teasing. He poked fun at Dawkins, for example, not just Dawkins' bad arguments. That bothered me. Christians are supposed to be known for their loving attitudes, and I doubt Dawkins is feeling the love.
There are references to drinking alcohol and a few uses of bad language, which will turn off some Christians. Overall, I liked the method the author used to illustrate the problems with certain atheist arguments. However, I'm doubtful that the author's brand of humor would help in explaining the point to an atheist who takes those arguments seriously.
I received this book as a review copy from the publisher.
I think he did a good job of showing why the arguments don't work. However, I can't use his stories to make a similar argument since he personalized them. I'd have to think a while to figure out how to explain his argument to someone else (which may be a good thing).
The author's humor won't be for everyone. It's mainly teasing about things few Americans have any stake in (like English sports teams that don't do well). However, the author sometimes went beyond silly stories and teasing. He poked fun at Dawkins, for example, not just Dawkins' bad arguments. That bothered me. Christians are supposed to be known for their loving attitudes, and I doubt Dawkins is feeling the love.
There are references to drinking alcohol and a few uses of bad language, which will turn off some Christians. Overall, I liked the method the author used to illustrate the problems with certain atheist arguments. However, I'm doubtful that the author's brand of humor would help in explaining the point to an atheist who takes those arguments seriously.
I received this book as a review copy from the publisher.
November 10, 2025
There are several objections to this book. The most superficial would be its puerile, flippant, sneering style; the littering of poor jokes; the fact that Bannister doesn’t seem to take the subject seriously. But whatever damage the author does to himself by this, it is by far the lesser of its crimes – it just prejudices the reader.
The second objection would be the charlatanry – the quoting out of context, the bait and switching, the setting up of straw men, the selection of the extreme or un-nuanced version of an argument (scientism, naturalism) to shoot down. My fear is that the author is either stupid or dishonest, or both. Stupid if he really thinks he is taking down atheism in this way, or dishonest if he doesn’t.
Another objection is the fact that where he might have provided arguments for claims, he merely states them and then proceeds as if the claim had been proven. The people whom he is taking up generally do not have the luxury of this. Much of Bannister’s argumentation comes from what one might call the Trump School. Say lots of incoherent, unsubstantiated things in the hope some will stick. Lie outright, because there will surely be a kernel of truth in what you say. Smear and malign.
Claim: atheism is a belief system. Not necessarily. Atheism is the disbelief in God. It is a counter to a proposition. No theism, no atheism. It is a response. Nazi / anti-Nazi. Being anti-Nazi is only meaningful when faced with the presence of Nazi people or Nazi ideas. Nothing is implied in it other than it being against Nazism.
One of the most disingenuous claims is that if you have no God, you ultimately deny the possibility of any meaning or purpose to human life. (The author goes from claiming that atheists have a belief system to saying they don’t and can’t believe in anything!) Of course, slip-sliding away, he doesn’t actually explain how he gets here. His argument seems to be that because there can be no agreement on what a good life is, or there are competing views on such a thing, this means no such thing can exist! Has he happened to notice that – testified by the numerous churches claiming the right and true interpretation of the Gospels, and many years of fairly futile theology – Christians do not agree on this either!
To refute atheism one needs to do one very simple thing. It would require no intellectual argument whatsoever. You simply need to show evidence of God. The author actually had an opportunity to do exactly this. Unfortunately he simply said that there is loads of evidence out there, but it wasn’t his job to provide it. How utterly lame is that!
What a condemnation of humanity to say that it cannot together generate meaning, ethical notions of the good, etc without recourse to a dubious historical figure from 2,000 years ago, who went around claiming to be the son of God. A figure who appeared in a very particular time in world history (just as Judea was rising up against the Roman Empire) and whose reported words have formed the basis of a system of belief that dominated much of the world, and still forms part of the basis of political systems of social organisation.
It is a good thing that there is no overall, transcendent meaning or purpose to human life. It is a challenge for us as humans to find one. It is a challenge we should embrace because it is a manifestly human challenge, but also a painful one and a terribly difficult one partly because of the amount of people who act in bad faith. It is a challenge that needs to be conducted in a world of untold suffering and injustice, amongst people who are at best indifferent to it, and at worst wilful participants. However an enormous amount of work has already been done in regard to developing political and ethical philosophy. Most legal systems are actually underpinned by notions of rights and duties that are founded in sophisticated, reasoned (though debatable) arguments based on the nature of man and the nature of society – whether the natural right of individual liberty or labour being the source of wealth. So what Bannister says cannot happen, does actually happen – the precepts of the modern world are essentially based on exactly that process.
It should be pointed out that for all Bannister’s claims about the superiority of such a transcendent system, all religions are human creations. They are inventions. They are mediated by human beings. Religious people may claim they have divine insight into life’s true purpose. They may believe that this is revealed to them, or others. But in the absence of any compelling evidence, or compelling argument as to why they are superior to others, this simply puts them in the same camp as Bannister puts atheists, that of people putting forward competing claims for life’s meaning. Bannister is upset because Christians are losing that argument. In the Western world, since they wiped out the pagans, the druids, the witches, the Cathars, the free thinkers and the free spirits, they enjoyed a monopoly over that discourse. That monopoly has crumbled and it is a damn good thing.
For all the tambourine shaking and the dad jokes, Christianity has brutally asserted its theological notions upon people around the world. It has not, to my knowledge, ever owned up to or apologised for those actions. And one reason for that is faith. Not faith in reason, or belief in logic, but blind faith in either scripture or the preachings of others. Bannister, stupidly honest or dishonestly stupid, would like us to believe that he is making a reasonable argument for his Christian god. That his religion is a place where the evidence is weighed up; that his conclusions stem from an examination of evidence, facts, and good sense. But then why is his argument so terribly flawed?
It would take a long time to unpick all the poor reasoning in this book. And it would be difficult, not least because it sells itself as antidote to bad arguments. It is a terrible, ugly mess. I was hoping for something that would be more challenging. But the challenge of this is more like trying to piece together a shredded Chinese translation of Hegel’s Science of Logic. There is no point in doing so. Save your brainpower for something worthwhile.
The second objection would be the charlatanry – the quoting out of context, the bait and switching, the setting up of straw men, the selection of the extreme or un-nuanced version of an argument (scientism, naturalism) to shoot down. My fear is that the author is either stupid or dishonest, or both. Stupid if he really thinks he is taking down atheism in this way, or dishonest if he doesn’t.
Another objection is the fact that where he might have provided arguments for claims, he merely states them and then proceeds as if the claim had been proven. The people whom he is taking up generally do not have the luxury of this. Much of Bannister’s argumentation comes from what one might call the Trump School. Say lots of incoherent, unsubstantiated things in the hope some will stick. Lie outright, because there will surely be a kernel of truth in what you say. Smear and malign.
Claim: atheism is a belief system. Not necessarily. Atheism is the disbelief in God. It is a counter to a proposition. No theism, no atheism. It is a response. Nazi / anti-Nazi. Being anti-Nazi is only meaningful when faced with the presence of Nazi people or Nazi ideas. Nothing is implied in it other than it being against Nazism.
One of the most disingenuous claims is that if you have no God, you ultimately deny the possibility of any meaning or purpose to human life. (The author goes from claiming that atheists have a belief system to saying they don’t and can’t believe in anything!) Of course, slip-sliding away, he doesn’t actually explain how he gets here. His argument seems to be that because there can be no agreement on what a good life is, or there are competing views on such a thing, this means no such thing can exist! Has he happened to notice that – testified by the numerous churches claiming the right and true interpretation of the Gospels, and many years of fairly futile theology – Christians do not agree on this either!
To refute atheism one needs to do one very simple thing. It would require no intellectual argument whatsoever. You simply need to show evidence of God. The author actually had an opportunity to do exactly this. Unfortunately he simply said that there is loads of evidence out there, but it wasn’t his job to provide it. How utterly lame is that!
What a condemnation of humanity to say that it cannot together generate meaning, ethical notions of the good, etc without recourse to a dubious historical figure from 2,000 years ago, who went around claiming to be the son of God. A figure who appeared in a very particular time in world history (just as Judea was rising up against the Roman Empire) and whose reported words have formed the basis of a system of belief that dominated much of the world, and still forms part of the basis of political systems of social organisation.
It is a good thing that there is no overall, transcendent meaning or purpose to human life. It is a challenge for us as humans to find one. It is a challenge we should embrace because it is a manifestly human challenge, but also a painful one and a terribly difficult one partly because of the amount of people who act in bad faith. It is a challenge that needs to be conducted in a world of untold suffering and injustice, amongst people who are at best indifferent to it, and at worst wilful participants. However an enormous amount of work has already been done in regard to developing political and ethical philosophy. Most legal systems are actually underpinned by notions of rights and duties that are founded in sophisticated, reasoned (though debatable) arguments based on the nature of man and the nature of society – whether the natural right of individual liberty or labour being the source of wealth. So what Bannister says cannot happen, does actually happen – the precepts of the modern world are essentially based on exactly that process.
It should be pointed out that for all Bannister’s claims about the superiority of such a transcendent system, all religions are human creations. They are inventions. They are mediated by human beings. Religious people may claim they have divine insight into life’s true purpose. They may believe that this is revealed to them, or others. But in the absence of any compelling evidence, or compelling argument as to why they are superior to others, this simply puts them in the same camp as Bannister puts atheists, that of people putting forward competing claims for life’s meaning. Bannister is upset because Christians are losing that argument. In the Western world, since they wiped out the pagans, the druids, the witches, the Cathars, the free thinkers and the free spirits, they enjoyed a monopoly over that discourse. That monopoly has crumbled and it is a damn good thing.
For all the tambourine shaking and the dad jokes, Christianity has brutally asserted its theological notions upon people around the world. It has not, to my knowledge, ever owned up to or apologised for those actions. And one reason for that is faith. Not faith in reason, or belief in logic, but blind faith in either scripture or the preachings of others. Bannister, stupidly honest or dishonestly stupid, would like us to believe that he is making a reasonable argument for his Christian god. That his religion is a place where the evidence is weighed up; that his conclusions stem from an examination of evidence, facts, and good sense. But then why is his argument so terribly flawed?
It would take a long time to unpick all the poor reasoning in this book. And it would be difficult, not least because it sells itself as antidote to bad arguments. It is a terrible, ugly mess. I was hoping for something that would be more challenging. But the challenge of this is more like trying to piece together a shredded Chinese translation of Hegel’s Science of Logic. There is no point in doing so. Save your brainpower for something worthwhile.
November 14, 2015
Ironically, for a book that is all about bad arguments this book is full of them. Ironically, for a book that mocks the sneering of atheists it spends a lot of time sneering at atheists.
I think what I find most objectionable is the lack of empathy and humanity in the tone of the book, when he uses humour it often comes across as a bit smug, when he puts one of his sprawling yet simplistic arguments across he does it in the tone of someone who is not open to a debate (yes, I know you can't debate with a book). A little more love towards people would have gone a long way!
I would certainly not recommended this book to any of my Christian or Skeptical friends!
I think what I find most objectionable is the lack of empathy and humanity in the tone of the book, when he uses humour it often comes across as a bit smug, when he puts one of his sprawling yet simplistic arguments across he does it in the tone of someone who is not open to a debate (yes, I know you can't debate with a book). A little more love towards people would have gone a long way!
I would certainly not recommended this book to any of my Christian or Skeptical friends!
September 10, 2019
Evidence, schmevidence! How do we know we're not just dreaming?
Andy Bannister does a good job of poking fun at several of the new atheists' arguments. He even offers some great rebuttals. However, I felt often his arguments were more about making us laugh, than convincing anyone that he was correct. A talking penguin that makes up his own meaning for life is funny, but does little to truly illustrate that life is meaningless apart from God. That being said, the book was an enjoyable read and gives us many reasons to trust that Christians aren't either all ignorant or self deceived.
Andy Bannister does a good job of poking fun at several of the new atheists' arguments. He even offers some great rebuttals. However, I felt often his arguments were more about making us laugh, than convincing anyone that he was correct. A talking penguin that makes up his own meaning for life is funny, but does little to truly illustrate that life is meaningless apart from God. That being said, the book was an enjoyable read and gives us many reasons to trust that Christians aren't either all ignorant or self deceived.
February 17, 2017
Bannister takes a deliberately lighthearted tone, but it comes across as condescending in many places. He attacks arguments with some condescension, which I don't really mind, but the mixture of "humor" and bile doesn't work.
This is an entry-level book. The arguments are retread arguments and won't give anything new to experienced readers of apologetics. He makes bold assertions (objective morality, objective meaning, and even that God exists) without backup.
If you're a Christian who wants a pat on the head, this might be the book for you, but this book makes no contribution to the intellectual part of Christian apologetics.
This is an entry-level book. The arguments are retread arguments and won't give anything new to experienced readers of apologetics. He makes bold assertions (objective morality, objective meaning, and even that God exists) without backup.
If you're a Christian who wants a pat on the head, this might be the book for you, but this book makes no contribution to the intellectual part of Christian apologetics.
August 22, 2015
I really enjoyed this book. It's a great overview it some if the flaws in the arguments of the new Atheism movement, and its also a very accessible book to lend to friends who may be curious but not up to a full on academic style. Dr. Bannister makes his points well but with wit. My only complaint is that this book took me longer to read than it should have because I had to stop to facepalmed every 2 mines because there were SO MANY ridiculous puns. And soooo mannny alliterations.
February 9, 2016
It's cool to be an atheist today, and aspiring militant atheists can read books by Hitchens, Dawkins et al, and slam their opponents with... But, hey, wait a minute! These books and arguments are not quite so convincing as some people think. In fact, they're full of holes. You don't think so? Then this is the book for you!
June 26, 2017
A fantastic book that is extremely readable, with strong logical arguments mixed with practical humour. This book is sensible and reasonable, and rips the rug out from under many common empty arguments against the Christian faith. Bannister is a level-headed person who tries to walk a middle road, not assuming anything simply because of his faith. A repeat read for sure!
August 21, 2015
The book is amusing. As an atheist this book didn't represent me because I never feel the need to have arguments, discussions or defend my being an Atheist. I'm proud to be an atheist and respectful of others of all faiths.
August 19, 2015
This is an easy to read apologetics book. Arguments are taken to their logical conclusion with wit, humor and seriousness.
January 11, 2019
Misreprsentations and straw men from beginning to end. I've read books like this before. Nothing new here.
April 1, 2019
Jättebra och rolig! Rekommenderar åt alla, kristna som ateister.
Read
February 15, 2017In the world (sometimes alternate universe) of apologetics, many good arguments are made but merely slip through the cracks of irrelevance due to disinterest, disengagement, and dog on unpopularity.
On the other hand, if someone in Christendom makes a bad argument, it is immediately exposed by “to whom it may concern”. Atheists and Secularists are relentless in their efforts to deconstruct the Christian Faith. Our responsibility is to make not only convincing arguments but also sound and valid. As Christians who claim to be bearers, proclaimers, and defenders of the truth, we don’t have the luxury of being sloppy when it comes to our presentation. This is the front line of the so-called culture war and frankly, it’s one of the reasons we have lost so much relevance as culture engagers.
Congruently, skeptics, secularists, atheists, agnostics, materialists, Neo-Darwinists, and the list goes on, display an entire array of un-critical thinking on a variety of issues. Some of their fallacious forays focus fearful flocks on seemingly insurmountable logic, when more often than not they’ve let their mouth overload their tail.
Bad arguments are a problem.
There are lots of people out there making arguments and there are many of them bad. That is reality for Christians and non-Christians alike. To be sure, when Christians make bad arguments the consequences are far more detrimental.
I made an effort to point that out last year when I argued that several Christian leaders were making a bad argument when it came to the issue of the Confederate Battle Flag. In my blog post Arguments Matter, I pointed out the logical outcome of their argument. Even though they may have been well-intentioned and even possibly correct, their argument will lead to some unintended consequences and the Church will pay a price.
How important is it to make good arguments? What are the results of making a bad argument? What is at stake? How can we recognize a bad argument?
That is the point of Andy Bannister’s latest book, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist or the Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments.
Who is Andy Bannister?
Dr. Andy Bannister is the Director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity and an adjunct speaker for RZIM. He holds a PhD in Islamic Studies and speaks regularly in Canada, the US, and the UK.
Andy resides in Canada but is definitely British, which explains the constant “ou” he uses in words like ‘favorite’ to confuse Americans. He is a well-known apologist and a joy to read. He’s authored a academic read An Oral Formulaic Study of the Qur’an which is an excellent resource and Heroes-Five Leaders from Whose Lives We Can Learn. Both are serious reads for the serious Christian.
The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist strays from that ilk a bit.
If you are from the South (the Southern US), you are probably familiar with Lewis Grizzard. In my hometown, he was featured in the local newspaper for several years. His comical stories of Southern life gave many folks a laugh by telling stories about ‘real’ life and ‘real’ people. The personal feel gave the reader something to hold on to, dirt to put your hands in, so to speak.
coffee-1030971_1920
The problem with Yankees is they dont know what to do after dinner. They don’t know how to sit a spell and tell stories.-Paul Hemphill as quoted by Rick Cartledge
That made the truth in Grizzard’s stories much easier to swallow for they were not without a point. A little honey makes the vinegar go down…
Andy’s newest book is a whole lot of helpful truth packaged in a great deal of honey, if you’ll excuse my metaphor. The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist is one of those books that is not only good for the apologist who may go off halfcocked at times, it’s a book that is accessible to anyone in the pews, and it’s a joy to read!
What’s in it?
Chapter after chapter a story is told, an argument presented, and what ought to be obvious but is easy to miss is exposed. Andy has done a superb job at representing some of the rhetorically strong but logically weak arguments used by many of the New Atheists and their followers. From the “One less God” argument to the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”, Andy peels back the layers of logical licentiousness and exposes the rotten root of a bad argument.
On the surface, there is an obvious benefit to the reader who has struggled with any of these specific arguments. Underneath, the benefit is much greater. The reader has the opportunity to learn how to recognize a bad one. Give a man a fish, he is fed for a day. Teach him to fish, well, you know the rest.
The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist is a training exercise from front to back.
Because the personal stories are tangible examples the reader can experience with Andy, reality teaches perception by instilling a real discernment rather than an abstraction. That very accessible feature of this book is the dirt under the fingernails missing in many apologetics reads.
The humor keeps laypeople turning pages. That not only benefits those readers, it benefits the Church. All too often, apologetics books are written for apologetics professionals, but to be honest that’s a top down approach to a grass roots Faith. Christianity’s most effective apologists and most contested engagers are sitting in the pews, not across the microphone on Unbelievable, no offense to Justin Brierley. Thank you to Andy for remembering the little guy who also needs to be equipped to recognize bad arguments.
My reco!
There are a few books that I’d recommend for anyone taking it upon themselves to present Classical Christianity, especially those who want to be prepared to argue convincingly for its truth. In fact, there are now four that have to do specifically with arguments and this is one of them.
Greg Koukl’s Tactics is a must have for those who want a way to engage effectively but aren’t sure where to begin.
How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicator by Joe Carter and John Coleman is a great way to learn how to argue from the Master, literally.
Vox Day’s book, SJWs Always Lie is not necessarily a traditional Christian read, but it’s a great look at why arguments are often unconvincing and how to use rhetoric to move forward.
Now, Andy Bannister’s The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist rounds them out as very useful to help the reader learn to recognize bad arguments and avoid their consequences.
If you’re teaching a Sunday School class, teaching apologetics in church, leading a small group, or discipling a brother or sister, Andy Bannister’s The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist is a great tool to teach as well as a great read to recommend.
On the other hand, if someone in Christendom makes a bad argument, it is immediately exposed by “to whom it may concern”. Atheists and Secularists are relentless in their efforts to deconstruct the Christian Faith. Our responsibility is to make not only convincing arguments but also sound and valid. As Christians who claim to be bearers, proclaimers, and defenders of the truth, we don’t have the luxury of being sloppy when it comes to our presentation. This is the front line of the so-called culture war and frankly, it’s one of the reasons we have lost so much relevance as culture engagers.
Congruently, skeptics, secularists, atheists, agnostics, materialists, Neo-Darwinists, and the list goes on, display an entire array of un-critical thinking on a variety of issues. Some of their fallacious forays focus fearful flocks on seemingly insurmountable logic, when more often than not they’ve let their mouth overload their tail.
Bad arguments are a problem.
There are lots of people out there making arguments and there are many of them bad. That is reality for Christians and non-Christians alike. To be sure, when Christians make bad arguments the consequences are far more detrimental.
I made an effort to point that out last year when I argued that several Christian leaders were making a bad argument when it came to the issue of the Confederate Battle Flag. In my blog post Arguments Matter, I pointed out the logical outcome of their argument. Even though they may have been well-intentioned and even possibly correct, their argument will lead to some unintended consequences and the Church will pay a price.
How important is it to make good arguments? What are the results of making a bad argument? What is at stake? How can we recognize a bad argument?
That is the point of Andy Bannister’s latest book, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist or the Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments.
Who is Andy Bannister?
Dr. Andy Bannister is the Director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity and an adjunct speaker for RZIM. He holds a PhD in Islamic Studies and speaks regularly in Canada, the US, and the UK.
Andy resides in Canada but is definitely British, which explains the constant “ou” he uses in words like ‘favorite’ to confuse Americans. He is a well-known apologist and a joy to read. He’s authored a academic read An Oral Formulaic Study of the Qur’an which is an excellent resource and Heroes-Five Leaders from Whose Lives We Can Learn. Both are serious reads for the serious Christian.
The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist strays from that ilk a bit.
If you are from the South (the Southern US), you are probably familiar with Lewis Grizzard. In my hometown, he was featured in the local newspaper for several years. His comical stories of Southern life gave many folks a laugh by telling stories about ‘real’ life and ‘real’ people. The personal feel gave the reader something to hold on to, dirt to put your hands in, so to speak.
coffee-1030971_1920
The problem with Yankees is they dont know what to do after dinner. They don’t know how to sit a spell and tell stories.-Paul Hemphill as quoted by Rick Cartledge
That made the truth in Grizzard’s stories much easier to swallow for they were not without a point. A little honey makes the vinegar go down…
Andy’s newest book is a whole lot of helpful truth packaged in a great deal of honey, if you’ll excuse my metaphor. The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist is one of those books that is not only good for the apologist who may go off halfcocked at times, it’s a book that is accessible to anyone in the pews, and it’s a joy to read!
What’s in it?
Chapter after chapter a story is told, an argument presented, and what ought to be obvious but is easy to miss is exposed. Andy has done a superb job at representing some of the rhetorically strong but logically weak arguments used by many of the New Atheists and their followers. From the “One less God” argument to the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”, Andy peels back the layers of logical licentiousness and exposes the rotten root of a bad argument.
On the surface, there is an obvious benefit to the reader who has struggled with any of these specific arguments. Underneath, the benefit is much greater. The reader has the opportunity to learn how to recognize a bad one. Give a man a fish, he is fed for a day. Teach him to fish, well, you know the rest.
The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist is a training exercise from front to back.
Because the personal stories are tangible examples the reader can experience with Andy, reality teaches perception by instilling a real discernment rather than an abstraction. That very accessible feature of this book is the dirt under the fingernails missing in many apologetics reads.
The humor keeps laypeople turning pages. That not only benefits those readers, it benefits the Church. All too often, apologetics books are written for apologetics professionals, but to be honest that’s a top down approach to a grass roots Faith. Christianity’s most effective apologists and most contested engagers are sitting in the pews, not across the microphone on Unbelievable, no offense to Justin Brierley. Thank you to Andy for remembering the little guy who also needs to be equipped to recognize bad arguments.
My reco!
There are a few books that I’d recommend for anyone taking it upon themselves to present Classical Christianity, especially those who want to be prepared to argue convincingly for its truth. In fact, there are now four that have to do specifically with arguments and this is one of them.
Greg Koukl’s Tactics is a must have for those who want a way to engage effectively but aren’t sure where to begin.
How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicator by Joe Carter and John Coleman is a great way to learn how to argue from the Master, literally.
Vox Day’s book, SJWs Always Lie is not necessarily a traditional Christian read, but it’s a great look at why arguments are often unconvincing and how to use rhetoric to move forward.
Now, Andy Bannister’s The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist rounds them out as very useful to help the reader learn to recognize bad arguments and avoid their consequences.
If you’re teaching a Sunday School class, teaching apologetics in church, leading a small group, or discipling a brother or sister, Andy Bannister’s The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist is a great tool to teach as well as a great read to recommend.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 95 reviews