The main impetus for the book came from discussions on Usenet. alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, to which I contribute regularly, is infested by a great number of atheist posters. They seem to outnumber the Catholics.

Now atheism shares with Catholicism the distinction of being an intellectually tenable position. With the exception of the special case of Reform Judaism, no other religious position can be defended by a philosphically serious person. We know that the Torah was not given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and we know that the Koran contains errors and absurdities which preclude it being literally dictated by the archangel Gabriel. We know that the theory of evolution rules out biblical fundamentalism. Similarly, not even Hindu intellectuals really believe in the existence of the Hindu deities. Other non-Western religions have similar crises of credibility - we can know this without necessarily being experts in each one, because none has attracted serious interest from professional Western philosophers, which a credible religion surely would have. The academy is split between mainstream Christians, a sprinkling of Reform Jews, and atheists, with atheists now in the majority.

Atheism deserves a decent defence. It doesn't usually get it. The typical atheist believes that his case is so strong that all he need do is sneer. Though there are serious philosophical problems with Christianity, there are also serious philosophical problems with atheism. A hundred and fifty years after Darwin, scientists still haven't come up with a convincing explanation of human free will, consciousness, and language. No one knows why there is something rather than nothing at all. The miracles claimed by other religions usually evaporate on closer analysis, but no one has proposed a very convincing natural explanation for the resurrection. None of this constitutes proof that atheism is wrong. It simply means that it is not the open-and-shut case that most atheists think it is.

Rhetoric is more potent than logic. To name is to conquer. That is why I have named each argument used by atheists. All the Christian need to do is to say "that is the Wicca argument", or "Deism fallacy", and the atheist will probably crumple. The refutation is in the book and probably long forgotten, and of course it is not the final word on the topic - atheists can and do come back at me. The act of naming the argument labels the atheist as more of the same old thing. He thought he was being very daring and provocative by demanding that the church obey employment law on gay clergy, but that is just the boring old "liberalism" argument.

There are some elite atheists such as Richard Dawkins, an Oxford don, but most aren't especially bright. They believe any sort of rubbish, from the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail up. Those of us who are blessed with intelligence and education must be careful not to quash online atheists. They must be brought to understand that their arguments are not accepted, and most are pretty arrogant - they've read a couple of cheap paperbacks and so now they think they know the inside story about Christian origins - and so we need to bring them into touch with reality. But the world is a lonely place, particularly if you are an atheist. If a child engages in attention-seeking behaviour, then usually the root of the problem is that that child does not receive anough attention. When the atheist comes before his immortal judge, he will say "I disbelieved in you, because despite many conversations with believers, I was not convinced". Then the judge will turn to us, and demand "exactly what did you say to this man?"

Let's make sure that we can give a good account in answer to that question.

The book is available here ( a preview chapter is provided free )

12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)