What is a modern philosopher to make of Paul, the apostle? What do non-Christian philosophers in Europe gain from reading ancient letters from Christianity's first great ideologue, and letters addressed to groups of people lost to time? To ask this question is to acknowledge that despite religious faith being regarded by many as a stage that our modern societies have left behind, contemporary philosophers are confronted with questions such as multiculturalism and religious fundamentalism in the wake of immigration and the increasing presence of religious minorities. The Letters of Paul have gained the interest of several philosophers, and the interpretations of the apostle have taken many forms. Looking closely at Paul's letters which have gained most interest from atheist philosophers, The First Letter to the Corinthians and the Letter to the Romans, this book offers an overview of the various ways they have been understood. It pays close attention also to the readings of Paul in the three thinkers, Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud – canonized as two of the great pillars of the modern critique of religion – with Spinoza as one of their important predecessors. Confronting these readings with insights not only from the more recent philosophical readings of the apostle but also from historical-critical scholarship on the Bible, this book lifts the veil over a new picture of the apostle as a figure with potential value for non-Christians and atheists. An Apostle for Atheists leaves us with ideas that compel us to reconsider Paul's negative reputation for secular modernity and appreciate him as a figure of a radically new politics as well as a renewed psychoanalysis.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist argues that Christianity requires the least faith of all worldviews because it is the most reasonable. The authors lay out the evidence for truth, God, and the Bible in logical order and in a readable, non-technical, engaging style. A valuable aid to those interested in examining the reasonableness of the Christian faith, Geisler and Turek provide a firm challenge to the the prior beliefs of doubters and skeptics.

For many Americans the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, was the first time they had considered Islam. Were the terrorists motivated by the true dictates of their religion, or had they hijacked Islam as well as the planes in a political cause unrelated to the teachings of Muhammad? Christianity, Islam, and Atheism argues that Islam is a religion of conquest and subjugation and that in spite of 9 /11 and thousands of other terrorist attacks throughout the world, many in the West still do not know or admit this because it conflicts with their multiculturalism and their belief in the equivalence of all cultures and religions. To meet the challenge from Islam, Christians need to know more about the important differences between Islam and Christianity, yet many have been lulled into complacency by the misleading and largely unexamined assumption that the two religions are similar. The time that Christians spend in pursuing common ground is time that Islamic activists will use to press their radical agenda. In addition to challenging both the multicultural and common-ground approaches, William Kilpatrick also exposes the role played by atheists and secularists in advancing Islam. Despite paying lip service to freedom, radical secularists serve as enablers of radical Islam. The civil liberties that the West enjoys are the fruit of Christian civilization, Kilpatrick argues, and only a reawakened Christianity can defend them against Islam's advance.

Is atheism evil? Or is it our deeds that make us evil, and not in our having no God. If atheism is evil, what happens then to the “Gift of Free Will” that God gave us? Does God look at the label, and not at the heart? Happy reading!

There is an old saying that invention is the mother of necessity and this book is a result of that idea. There would never be a need for such a book if the religions and religious authority would practice their traditions like Native Americans or the Australian aborigines. We know they have their gods, costumes, and traditions and just about everyone (bar a few religious fanatics) respects cultural heritage and wants them to revel in their anthropological significance. In the same token, the likelihood that a Native American or aborigine is going to show up at your door preaching that Bahloo, the sun god, is the reason man hates snakes and if you do not accept Bahloo as your savior, you will be walking the desert forever, is essentially non-existent. Your author, Lance Gregorchuk, designed this book to give the free thinker, agnostic, atheist, fence sitter and even believer the facts for the arguments that there can be no god or gods.

"The greatest authors of atheism did more to push me toward belief in God than any Christian apologist writer." —Timothy Morgan After a decade of major disappointments, Timothy Morgan was ready to reject God. Atheism offered an escape—an opportunity to dismiss God permanently. But as Morgan delved into the thinking of great atheists past and present, he was stunned. In book after book, he found their reasons for rejecting God to be intellectually unfulfilling. In Thank God for Atheists he candidly shares his journey by letting atheists speak for themselves, examining their logic to see whether it holds up or not. Along the way, deals with these key questions: What are the key elements of the atheist worldview? Who are the leading modern-day atheists, and what are they saying? How can you effectively respond to atheism? You'll find this a personal and thoughtful book on why the evidence for God is much more compelling than the evidence against Him.

With Boyle on Atheism, J.J. MacIntosh has culled the Boyle manuscripts held at the Royal Society Library in London and transcribed the portions that relate to atheism, arranging them in the order Boyle appears to have intended.