God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions. Paperback – April 15, 2013

God or Godless?: One Atheist, One Christian. Twenty Controversial by John W. Loftus and Randal Rauser"God or Godless?" is a book about debating twenty philosophical issues regarding the question of whether God(s) exists. The debaters, one an atheist, John W. Loftus and the other the Christian, Randal Rauser; each select ten debate statements in which they get to argue for the affirmative of their case. The cases are interesting and the book follows an easy format to follow. A great concept but overall did not work as well as hoped for. This brief 209-page book is composed of the following twenty cases: 1. If There Is No God, Then Life Has No Meaning, 2. The Biblical Concept of God Evolved from Polytheism to Monotheism, 3. If There Is No God, Then Everything Is Permitted, 4. The Biblical God Required Child Sacrifices for His Pleasure, 5. Science Is No Substitute for Religion, 6. The Biblical God Commanded Genocide, 7. God Is the Best Explanation of the Whole Shebang, 8. The Biblical God Does Not Care Much about Slaves, 9. If There Is No God, Then We Don't Know Anything, 10. The Biblical God Does Not Care Much about Women, 11. Love Is a Many Splendored Thing, but Only if God Exists, 12. The Biblical God Does Not Care Much about Animals, 13. Everybody Has Faith, 14. The Biblical God Is Ignorant about Science, 15. God Is Found in the Majesty of the Hallelujah Chorus, 16. The Biblical God Is Ignorant about the Future, 17. God Best Explains the Miracles in People's Lives, 18. The Biblical God Is an Incompetent Creator, 19. Jesus Was Resurrected, So Who Do You Think Raised Him?, and 20. The Biblical God Is an Incompetent Redeemer.Positives:1. There is not a more interesting topic than whether or not god(s) exist.2. Excellent concept, solid and easy format to follow. The debaters agreed upon specific guidelines that thankfully kept the length of the book at a manageable level for most laypersons.3. Informal, generally conversational and civil tone throughout.4. I found my atheist worldview rarely if ever challenged by Mr. Rauser. Point after point, I found myself easily swatting away his arguments.5. Loftus clearly won this debate, his command of the Bible suits him well for such debates...of course, it's a matter of opinion but I will back my claim with a series of positives geared around the idea that for the truth to have any value it must correspond to reality as closely as possible.6. Rauser claims that God is restoring creation and has invited us to find our life's purpose for working for his "peaceable" kingdom. Really? Genocides, slavery, child sacrifices, does that sound peaceful?7. Loftus makes many points that resonate with me, "There is no supernatural being out there. Therefore, the ones doing the permitting are those of us on earth in our respective cultures. We do not permit just anything either. In every society we come up with moral rules just as we do when it comes to speed limits on our highways, regulations for food preparation, protocols for approaching different people, or criminal acts we consider harmful to the common good. What kind of society could we possibly have where everything is permitted anyway?" On the other hand, Rauser claims we need a transcendent ground of meaning and purpose. On what moral ground does Rauser denounce slavery when the foundation of his morality endorses it?8. Loftus really hammers Rauser on child sacrifices, leaving him basically to resort on "Admittedly this leaves me with a bit of a puzzle." You think? Loftus concludes with a resounding, "What good reason is there for God to accommodate people who thought children should be butchered in his name? Can't he say "no, don't do that," like any good parent? This is a lame excuse for a God. This practice is barbaric by Randal's own standards, which is the point." Checkmate.9. Science versus religion...Loftus connects hard with, "Science has a method for arriving at the truths that religion has failed to give us." He concludes quite persuasively, "There is no worshiping science; we just trust its results. It has continued to produce the goods. I cannot trust religion to produce anything comparable by far. Why bet on religion? It's a bet against the overwhelming odds. It's a bet against reason itself." Rauser just plays verbal gymnastics poorly around a topic he brought up to begin with.10. Loftus just pounds away at Rauser by using the very same instrument (the Bible) against him. There is no reasonable defense for genocide. Loftus, "And even if the number of noncombatants killed was exaggerated, how many women and children is Yahweh justified in having killed before it becomes immoral?" Rauser retorts, "I'm using my moral intuitions as a guide for reading the Bible." Really? I use my moral intuition and reason to reject the immorality that is the practice of genocide.11. Rauser relies on the god of the gaps to arrogantly claim one while Loftus, "The best answer to the existence of the whole shebang is that we do not know fully--yet. Until science helps us solve this problem, we shouldn't pretend to know." Admitting to not knowing is not only the most honest answer, it's the only answer that best corresponds with our current knowledge about the world. Claiming to know without evidence is dishonest and ARROGANT.12. Slavery, slavery, slavery...if there is one topic that destroys the Bible it's this one, "A religion should be judged based on how it treats the defenseless. Slaves are the most defenseless of them all. Given the cruelty toward slaves that we see in the Bible and that has been acted out in history, all civilized people should reject Christianity as nothing but a religion created in a barbaric era."13. The biblical cruelty toward women exposed by Loftus, "There is a running joke among skeptics that sometime in the future when homosexuality and animals rights are fully embraced by Christians (something already in process), they will argue that Christianity was the catalyst for these social changes, just as they now falsely argue their faith was the catalyst for the origins of science, the abolition of slavery, and women's rights. It's only a matter of time, but it's utter bunk." Once again Rauser relies on linguistic gymnastics to fog the issue.14. Rauser accepts neo-Darwinian evolution, hooray! Since evolution is true, Adam and Eve never happened and the cruel and unnecessary sacrifice of Jesus was unnecessary...and original sin is well a myth.15. Loftus on prayers, "Almost every scientific study done on prayer has shown that prayers are not statistically answered any better than luck."16. The amusing case of the incompetent "designer". Loftus,"There is much more I could add, but thinking people get the point. There isn't an intelligent designer. Even if Randal still believes there is one anyway, this supernatural force (or being) is not a benevolent one, much less an omnibenevolent one. To argue that this is all Eve's fault in Eden is scapegoating."17. Thought-provoking statements that will stay with me. Loftus, "This proves once again that believers must be convinced their faith is nearly impossible before they will consider it improbable, which is an unreasonable standard."18. Good use of evolution by Loftus to continue his onslaught, " The reason we sometimes act like brutes is because we evolved from them. There is therefore no need for atonement."19. The Last Word provides each debater an opportunity to tie things up.20. Enjoyed the recommended readings.Negatives:1. I didn't enjoy the debating style of Mr. Rauser. Even with an agreed upon limitation of 800 words per case he was able to ramble unnecessarily instead of staying on point. Loftus at times falls into the same trap but is ultimately able to get his points across.2. I didn't end up with a clear picture of what Mr. Rauser believes and why he believes it.3. Though easily winning this debate I think Loftus left some fruits behind, like the issue of compulsory love.4. Rauser offends, "To cultivate genuine compassion for the suffering of animals within a consistently atheistic worldview is akin to cultivating rain-forest orchids in the driest desert. It can't be done." Really? I love animals and I have some of the most GENUINE animal-loving friends who share an atheistic worldview.5. Rauser baffles me until I realize that his mission is not to seek the truth but to defend his faith against all odds. Rauser, "The real question here is whether we can credibly believe that God revealed himself through a book that reflects a scientific view of the world that we no longer accept." The answer would be NO Mr. Rauser. "God" could have easily conveyed scientific ideas in such a way that is understandable even if they didn't have the scientific tools at that time to understand them. Example, "There are tiny living things that live in your body some helpful and some that can make you sick. Future generations will be able to create tools that can help them see such things you can't see with the naked eye and confirm my word..." Was that so hard?In summary, "God or Godless?" was an excellent idea for a book that didn't quite work as well I had hoped, the inability of Mr. Rauser to stay on point took a lot of the enjoyment out of the book. Any good movie needs a good hero and a competent villain...Mr. Rauser did not live up to his end of the deal. Be that as it may, I don't think many people will be swayed much one way or another despite my own biased account that this was a one sided affair in favor of Mr. Loftus. Believers are not reasoned into their beliefs so I don't expect many to be reasoned Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity  out of it but it's nice to care enough about your beliefs to read such books. I look forward to reading more books of this ilk albeit with a more formidable opponent than Mr. Rauser. Worth the read with the reservations noted.Further suggestions: "Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity" and " The End of Christianity " by John Loftus, " Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism " and "Why I'm Not a Christian" by Richard Carrier, " Natural Atheism " and "Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Freethinker" by Dr. David Eller, " Man Made God: A Collection of Essays " by Barbara G. Walker, "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" by Sam Harris, " The Invention of the Jewish People " by Shlomo Sand, "The Portable Atheist" by Christopher Hitchens, "The End of Biblical Studies" by Hector Avalos, " Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are " by Bart Ehrman, " God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist " by Victor J. Stenger, "Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists" by Dan Barker, " Christian No More: On Leaving Christianity, Debunking Christianity, And Embracing Atheism And Freethinking " by Jeffrey Mark, and " The Invention of God: The Natural Origins of Mythology and Religion " by Bill Lauritzen.

20 topics, quick overviews and rebuttals - nice format (perhaps I'd have liked a TOUCH longer, but that's fine.)As at least one other reviewer noted, many of the chapters are repetitive. Mr. Loftus presents numerous ways in which he would have been a much better God than the Christian God. When I was a young boy, I remember praying in my bed - "God, if you're REALLY real, just flick my light on for a second." I wanted proof. Many of Mr. Loftus's arguments seems to be little more than that - a REAL God would show us he's REALLY REAL by doing, X, Y and Z, so then we'd know. But since we don't see X, Y or Z, God is a slacker. I think that's naive, at best. And how Mr. Loftus accuses Judaism of animal cruelty when more animals have probably died in science labs (suffering much worse) is beyond me. Obviously Mr. Loftus did not grow up on a farm. This is not to say Mr. Loftus has nothing challenging or deep to say: he does. But there's a lot of infantile arguments to weed through.Lest I be accused of being light on Mr. Rauser, I found so much of his arguments to be just so much rhetorical jousting (and Mr. Loftus returns this in kind, though usually on the defense, less on the offense.) Definitions of words, technical rhetorical limitations, proof steps...they all end up sounding very flat against the often heartfelt cries that Mr. Loftus is offering. When a man yells to God, "there are starving kids down here!" you can't reply, "well, if you consider that A is defined as the sum of the B and C and if C is really an expression of X, then the resultant demonstrates that X is outside the scope of our inquiry, by definition." I (of course) am being lippy here, but the proper response to that cry is, "yes, and I think God is looking down on us and saying the same thing. I've told you, ALL you need to do is love me and love each other. Is that so hard?"In the end, I fear neither is giving us the best arguments. And, after hearing the two debate (from a website) that is how they relate to each other in person as well. They don't seem to listen to the average person's question so much as twist it (like a politician) to launch into a prepared line of reasoning.My own commentary:I think Jesus came to earth (forgive me if this sounds irreverent) somewhat like an Undercover Boss. We know how the workers treated him (no matter what you think of Jesus, you MUST accept that he lived, was a preacher and then was killed - to deny that is untenable). I think the world treats God the same way Jesus was treated. There are some who follow, many who come running if there's something in it for them, the vast majority who ignore, and a handful who want to bring in the gallows. Mr. Loftus is the one with the black hood.

I found John W. lotus to be the most informed and persuasive by far in this series of questions. His opponent, Randal Rauser, ignored most of points made and came over as completely inadequate.I'd certainly recommend this book to Christian and Atheist alike to judge for themselves. The 20 questions covered are succinct but to the point.Since each question is short the book can be read in short intervals. This kindle edition is excellent.

A book to make you think, has good arguments which have helped me to question my faith in a positive way. I still have faith in a loving God and at 83 this has given me hope for the future. Humans are very arrogant, they think they know it all but have not even scratched the surface. My own spiritual experience 25 years ago proved to me, beyond doubt, that their is something very loving and good after death.

A decent enough read, but don't expect any ground breaking moments where you are surprised.Indeed I found the protagonist arguing against my generally held position particularly weak (naturally so, but I've actually heard much stronger arguments that challenged my position), and frankly never felt he addressed the points that the points that the protagonist I sided with made.That said, it's a nice idea and decently executed.

An interesting and succinct way of presenting the old chestnuts. Has some new ideas and plenty of 'facts'. Ultimately, though, it boils down to 'belief' and - no facts are going to affect that.

Repetitive and the format didn't work. Despite their space limitations both authors take great liberalities with the questions and go off on massive tangents that have little to do with the topic being debated.