How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists

Excellently organized and written, this book covers most of the reasons I myself, left religion and became an Athiest. I would put this book alongside "The God Delusion" by Dawkins and "god is not Great" by Hitchins as must reads for the undecided and unenlightened. Barker provides a well-written expose on why he left religion and to my thinking, joins Dawkins and Hitchins in carrying forward the ideas and reasoning of Paine and Ingersoll.

This book, along with "God Is Not Great (by Christoper Hitchens), and "The God Delusion" (by Richard Dawkins) it rounds out an "Atheist Trifecta" of MANDATORY reading for anyone who considers themselves worthy of the term "atheist", "freethinker", or just plain non-religious! While some of it is a "re-hash" of the book "Losing Faith In Faith" (which Dan Barker wrote in 1989), it is still an excellent treatise on the issues that all atheists should have a MINIMUM of knowledge in. As I e-mailed Dan Barker, it should have been nominated for (and RECEIVED the 2008 Nobel Prize in Literature!). An excellent, scholarly-researched, and articulately arguementing read, every ahteist should RUN, nor walk to their nearest bookstore for an immediate copy!

It's distinctly exciting to read the details of such a journey out by someone who was so heavily involved in, so much a part of, evangelical theism (or any of the other types of supernaturalism from which so many have escaped). Barker's rebuttles to ecclesiastical syllogisms aren't always easy to follow on first read, but after going over them carefully, they seem understandable as well as unrefutable. They could use some more explanation for those of us who are not debaters or logicians.

As an example for people nervous about coming out of their cloisters, this book should provide great reassurance and help in doing so. For those who have already recognized that supernaturalism is an illusion (non-supernaturalism equals the acronym n.s.n., pronounced enesen; those who disbelieve supernaturalism are enesents) it provides good support, and enesents everywhere will likely find in it new justification for their decision.

It should assist a lot of folks in recognizing the source of their emotional feelings about religion and being "born again," and guide them away from that misplaced acceptance of simplistic mysteries in lieu of rational explanations and logic as the world turns slowly but irrevocably toward appreciating enesen.

I am almost finished reading the book. I have been reading several books on this subject of atheism . I liked this one very much because it was someone who went through in a personal way that he reallized about himself- I too have gone through such a similar search but certainly not to the extent that Dan has. i finally came to my senses and realized that truth about a god. However, i liked very much hearing Dan and of all the research he has done. There were
some facts I
already knew but it has really made the whole idea of godlessness more real than I thought. I am 77 yers old- Early on I wanted to be a Lutheran minister. I soon realized on my own that there was too much that did not make sense. I feel that the book has spelled out very clearly what is going on. I am an athiest. With this book and seveal others I have been more able to define myself. I am Bill Bobb

Ex-Christian Minister turned leading Atheist Dan Barker tells it like it is. His account of his journey from Faith to Reason is one of the most informative and lucid reads I have read. Each chapter addresses the fundamental issues of the God debate, such as the existence of God, where morality comes from, as well as whether or not the Bible is truly a "good book."

In addition, Dan Barker does a fine job defending the Atheist position and addressing the Theist claims from a (once) insider's perspective. The author uses clear language and reason to reaffirm the benefits of a secular society while warning of the dangers and delusions which so often accompany an overly religious one. Is an excellent addition to the new atheist push back; the cherry on top if you will.

I read this book on the recommendation of Steve Benson, from a thread on ex-mormon.org. It was a great read and I would recommend it to anyone who is seeking the liberation that comes from choosing a life of reason over superstition.

This is one of those books that, since I've read it, I've purchased several copies for friends and family. It is a must read for anyone interested in religion in any way. Godless is one of the most entertaining books on the subject!

You either have to question whether your beliefs "might" be wrong, or could be wrong, or you have to remain extremely arrogant, that you cannot be deceived or wrong about anything. If the latter is true, you are a fool. If you can accept that some of your beliefs could be wrong, that you could be mislead in at least some things, you owe it to yourself to investigate.

Crap, I realized I hadn't reviewed anything in awhile here on the store, and I'd simply loved this book, so here I am, reviewing one of the very finest anti-theist books I've read, and I've read a few in the last couple years. I have been an atheist now for a little over two years, this book didn't help me become an atheist because I'd gotten here already, but it's one I wished I'd read during or before my deconversion.

Dan Barker is just a great writer and a great thinker, so why should you read him if you are certain that he's wrong?

Well, my Christian thinker, here is why: Because if you believe you are a minister of the "Good News" and that people like me are going to hell, then you should feel some compulsion to find out what it is that is so deceiving us into following the thought process of men like Barker. I believe Barker is rational, intelligent, and more than a good writer, he's a convincing writer. Why should I not believe him? Tell me. Reason with me. What's wrong with his criticism of Christianity? Seriously, if you find something, I'd love to hear about it, but you'd better really read and understand what he has to say first.

I spent 37 years being an evangelical. I was told by the Christian apologist Ray Comfort (he speaks at the Huntington Beach pier regularly) that I was never a "real" Christian. Barker explains in this work why this is a stupid argument, he's been accused of the same. It's evil and cruel to tell someone like myself that I wasn't "really" a Christian, and if you think that, well you're an ignorant bigot.

I was a total Christian, in the lay ministry at the Anaheim Vineyard, I read the Bible far more than most, I read good Christian books for years and years (I have many reviews up here). I went on missions trips, I taught Sunday morning bible studies, I lead home groups, I accepted Jesus into my heart, I prayed in tongues, I said the sinners prayer, I prayed for people in the street. If I wasn't a "real" Christian, nobody is.

So if a former real Christian like myself can tell you that Dan Barkers book here is very worth reading because it exposes the truth about Christianity in a very real way (and the truth about how to logically look at the idea of "god") then you either have to just say I'm a total liar, crazy and dumb, or just perhaps that there is something of real significance here.

You don't have to agree with me, in fact, obviously as a skeptic, I don't expect or want you to. But I want you to think for yourself and study. Study. Study. Read Ehrman, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, watch Youtube videos, check out the nonstampcollectors videos. Read, inform yourself.

Christianity is a myth and a lie, it's something you can prove to yourself if you really want to know the truth.

Now, if I'm wrong and totally deceived by Satan, then as a Christian brother or sister, who is called to love me, explain to me, in logical terms, using evidence and reason, why I am wrong. I dare you.

Try reading this and really understanding it and then email me or comment on the review. I look forward to it.

To go from one extreme to the other... wow. That says a lot. And to hear voices telling you to do things.. that's a big red flag.

As someone summed it up:

"Not everything in life has some deep supernatural reason behind it, but Barker never grasped that as a Christian.
Barker simply went from being a fundamentalist Christian to being a fundamentalist atheist.
Barker is a man of extremes, and he only knows how to go from one extreme to another.
I think the vast majority of Christians will realize this certainly isn't typical behavior of a Christian, but rather the actions of a fanatic."

I'm a true unbeliever and I found it very informative. I enjoyed how he spun his story. I got a better understanding of a true believer. I'll admit I got a little lost with all the details about word usage, but still very enjoyable.

This is the story of how a devout Christian begins to see the flaws in the Christ myth. He becomes liberated and enlightened. He realizes that the morality of the Old and New Testaments are deeply flawed and that a higher level of ethics and morality come from an the place of love in the human psyche, not from a made-up coercive "God." He shows how even his parents, both church-going Christians gain greater peace and humility when shed the bonds of their previous ideology.

I'm not a reader. But this book is easy to read and very interesting. I knew a decent amount about the bible before, but I've learned more since reading this book. He doesn't just say "because I said so." He uses bible verses to disprove the bible and religion. I'm sure one day I'll read it again. I've already been raving about it to everyone. This really is just an overall great book.

What a great well done book this is!

My thanks to Dan Barker for this personal, logical, commonsense look at what Christianity is and what it isn't. This book will be ideal for anyone not sure what to believe about the claims of the Jesus sellers. Oh, yes, they want you to agree with them-- they want to reinforce their own doubts by getting another vote [you] in their favor. They want so desperately for this mind-virus, Christianity, to be a true and good thing. They want to feel superior to those heathens in outer darkness who just can not see the light.

Let's face it; Christianity is a cult. To be sure it is one of the longest lived and most successful cults in all of known human history but-- cult it is.
It works as a mind virus, passed on from person to person, playing on the natural fears and insecurities the mortal thinking animal naturally feels. Those promoting the cult are deeply embedded. They can not even think clearly in a context outside of what Christianity claims: You have the choice of eternal bliss or eternal damnation--oh, sinner, what will you do when the stars begin to fall?

Doesn't it seem extremely odd, challenging the absolute limits of creditability that the 'one eternal god of the universe' can't leave behind any clear record of his earthly life or his instructions for our way to live. Of course, the true believers will vigorously insist that there is good history and clear instructions aplenty for those willing to see the real truth. Many of us disagree with that: actual honest investigation will show extremely little evidence that the famous Jesus character ever even existed. The so-called book of instructions, the Bible, is a mishmash of contradictory stories and instructions. And even if it were true, it's not, but if it were-- why follow up that little flurry of godly intervention in human history by absolutely no additional contact from 'the god' for going on two millennia now? According to the 'bible' [bible simply means book] Jesus claimed he would be returning 'in glory' before his audience that day would themselves die. Over 1900 years later--still waiting. What's the holdup? I can't see how any one can be taken in by the Christian mind-virus at all if they are even reasonably intelligent and have made an honest reasonable investigation of all the facts, and lack thereof.

Dan Barker in an honest man, forced by his own integrity and love of truth to abandon his Christian ministry. Now as a self proclaimed atheist he works tirelessly to help those trapped by religious insanity to break free from that bondage of irrational belief. He likes to debate and is extremely good at it. I for one refuse to debate because the experience of many such encounters has proven over and over that the Christian arguer has no regard for common sense, facts, logic, reason, or truth. The cult is all and they will lie and ignore real arguments in favor of some non sequitur argument for their own preferred point of view. So, no, I won't waste my time debating with the true believers.

Let each and everyone decide for themselves what belief positions they want to hold. This wonderful book makes it plain you DO NOT need to believe in a pack of lies and illogical arguments to save your 'soul.' You are good and free and may choose to live that way. That's my way for sure and this book will help the confused searcher to find freedom and dignity, too.

As an ex-fundamentalist I appreciated the author's candid retelling of his experience as an evangelical pastor. However, I found the "meat" of the book -- a search for truth and meaning outside faith -- to be lacking in intellectual depth. Easy to skewer by Christian apologetics, I'm sure.

One area that the book touches on -- the truth behind the 'historical' Jesus -- is handled in a much more well-researched and elegant way by Reza Aslan's "Zealot". Highly recommended. Obviously "Zealot" is a different sort of book, not intended to be a personal narrative of deconversion, but interesting nonetheless.

I enjoyed this book it gave good insight how someone could be so into religion and all that crazy stuff, and then do a complete 360 and think himself out of it. It also helped me feel less embarrassed for falling for all that god stuff.

Dan Barker's Godless is an incredibly raw and insightful look at atheism through the eyes of a man coming out of his faith in the God of the Bible. I was crying at some parts and laughing through others. He has a beautiful way of writing and gave me courage to take a long hard look at my own faith.

Dan Barker's enthusiasm as a child-preacher is apparent in the opening pages of his book, as is his emerging dismay at the inconsistencies of the Bible and the realization that he had been duped by the Christian religion. Barker carefully and thoroughly dismantles the Bible, providing hundreds of proofs of its inconsistencies and showing that the events described as "miraculous" could not possibly have happened. This book is an excellent resource for those who have that vague feeling of unease that something is not "right" with the Bible, yet they cannot put their "finger" on it. Barker provides that "finger" in a well-thought-out, intelligent book that is easily grasped by the ordinary person with an inquiring and open mind.

I enjoyed this book it gave good insight how someone could be so into religion and all that crazy stuff, and then do a complete 360 and think himself out of it. It also helped me feel less embarrassed for falling for all that god stuff.

Dan Barker's Godless is an incredibly raw and insightful look at atheism through the eyes of a man coming out of his faith in the God of the Bible. I was crying at some parts and laughing through others. He has a beautiful way of writing and gave me courage to take a long hard look at my own faith.

Dan Barker's enthusiasm as a child-preacher is apparent in the opening pages of his book, as is his emerging dismay at the inconsistencies of the Bible and the realization that he had been duped by the Christian religion. Barker carefully and thoroughly dismantles the Bible, providing hundreds of proofs of its inconsistencies and showing that the events described as "miraculous" could not possibly have happened. This book is an excellent resource for those who have that vague feeling of unease that something is not "right" with the Bible, yet they cannot put their "finger" on it. Barker provides that "finger" in a well-thought-out, intelligent book that is easily grasped by the ordinary person with an inquiring and open mind.

Dan Barker struggles mightily with the Kalam argument in one chapter, but his reasoning is not always clear. The section on biblical contradictions is powerful. The section on the historicity of Jesus is one of the best I have read on that topic, going into more detail than other books.

Barker does a phenomenal job of tearing down the myth of Jesus and highlighting the inconsistencies in the Bible. Having been so well versed in the stories and moral teachings of Christianity, he presents a unique and illuminating perspective on it's flaws and failings. While I'm a little uncomfortable with Barker's repurposed proselytizing and song writing skills, I disagree with other critics who say the book will not win any converts. People on the fence or beginning to question their faith will have a hard time refuting his arguments. And those true believers who might be turned off by Dawkin's introduction are not the intended audience anyway.

Being born and raised in a fundamentalist Christian household, my eventual turn to atheism was not easy. Even though I usually don't provoke religious debates with my family, my deconversion still proves burdensome at times when I am surrounded by loved ones discussing their faith with one another, knowing it is a losing battle for me to speak up and make my stance known. After all, I have never wanted our ideological differences to create distance between myself and my family. Therefore Dan Barker's "Godless" is a "godsend"--for lack of a better term. Like Barker, I became an atheist not out of rebellion, heartbreak, or ignorance. Instead, it happened because I have always actively sought the truth. When I began expanding my mind by reading criticisms of the Bible and books on science and philosophy among other topics, no conclusion other than atheism seemed to make sense. If you find yourself in a similar walk of life, "Godless" is the book to read. Barker does not attempt to create enemies. All he does is explain the dangers and irrationalities of supernatural beliefs. But more importantly, he shows that it is possible to lead an ethical and moral life filled with peace, happiness, and enthusiasm without pointing blind eyes toward the heavens. He shows how you can get up from your prostrate position, unclasp your hands, dust off your knees and live for now with your head held high instead of hoping for something better at the end of the tunnel. All in all, Barker's book is a must for anyone interested in dissecting the many mysteries of the human experience.

This masterful book promotes reason and science over superstition and faith. The first portion of the book conveys Dan Barker's personal experiences, and it vividly describes the process by which he lost his faith. Then, Barker presents logical arguments supported by reason. I found the book to be engaging, insightful and informative. I highly recommend this book to those who are struggling with an existential crisis, as well to people of strong faith who want to understand "unbelievers."

I've just finished reading three books on a common theme: losing one's (Christian) religion and becoming an atheist. All three are excellent, but each approaches the topic from a very different perspective. I thought I might review them all together, and post the combined review on each book at the store. I don't know if this is consistent with the the store review policy, but never mind.

The first book is Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan Barker. I was slightly put off by the subtitle: "How an evangelical preacher became one of America's leading atheists." After all, one of the key points about atheism - and one that we have to keep reminding theists about - is that atheism is not an organized body of belief, it's no more a religion than "bald" is a hair colour. So how can anyone be a "leading atheist"? Who's being led? However if one substitutes "prominent" or "influential" for "leading", we can let that pass. And Barker is certainly influential: he's co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which is one of the most active groups working to uphold the Constitutional prohibition on church-state entanglement, and seeking to counteract the negative image of atheism in this country.

The second book that I considered was William Lobdell's Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America-and Found Unexpected Peace. Lobdell is an award-winning journalist who covered religion for the Los Angeles Times. After writing about many aspects of religion for many years, he finally decided to write about his own journey.

The last volume in this trilogy was Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, by John Loftus. Like Barker, Loftus was also an evangelical preacher, but although the arc of his experience was similar to Barker's, the result is a very different kind of book.

Let me begin by saying that each of these books is really good, and deserves a place in the library of anyone who is interested in the contemporary debate between religion and atheism. I hesitate to rank them, or recommend one over another; nevertheless I find myself compelled to do so. Of the three, Lobdell's "Losing My Religion" is the most essential, for two reasons. First, he is an excellent writer, and his prose is simply a delight to read. Secondly, he concentrates on his personal experience in a way that I haven't encountered before in books by atheists. Both Loftus and Barker set out to tell their story and argue their case, albeit in different ways, and each draws on writers as diverse as Dennett, Wells, Price, Martin, Shermer, Carrier and Nielsen in setting forth their arguments. Lobdell just wants to recount his own story, and what he has learned from it. He's not interested in converting anyone, or scoring debating points. As he writes, "To borrow Buddha's analogy, I've just spent eight years crossing a river in a raft of my own construction, and now I'm standing on a new shore. My raft was made not of dharma, like Buddhism's, but of things I gathered along the way: knowledge, maturity, humility, critical thinking and the willingness to face the world as it is, and not how I wish it to be. I don't knopw what the future holds in this new land. I don't see myself crossing the river back to Christianity... [or] adopting a new religion. My disbelief in a personal God now seems cemented to my soul. Other kinds of spirituality seem equally improbable. Besides, I like my life on this unexplored shore."

For Lobdell, the thing which provoked his crisis of faith was people: the yawning gulf between the ideals of a religion and the lives of those who practice and - especially - lead it. The horrific abuse of young people by Catholic priests, and the way it was covered up, refutes the claims of religion in many different ways. In particular, it challenges believers to justify theodicy (the "problem of evil"), as well as the Dostoievskian idea of religion as a bastion against the chaos of amorality. In contrast, for Barker and Loftus, the unravelling of their fundamentalist faiths was due to ideas: to the incoherence of religious dogma, and its incompatibility with science and reason.

Both Loftus and Barker were preachers. There are many distinct aspects to being a preacher: the performance artist, leading a collective act of worship; the scribe and teacher, explaining and interpreting the texts and practices of the faith; and the counsellor and confessor. All of these roles have roots in the shamanic and magical. As a believer, Barker was a performance artist, and he remains so in his newly found unbelief. He encourages the closeted skeptic, and fights fiercely for the rights of the non-religious. Loftus is a scribe: the apologist, the teacher. He was the defender of faith against its critics, and with the detailed knowledge that he acquired in this role, he has become the sharpest critic of religious apology.. Each of their books reflects the way that they interpreted the role of preacher.

Both Barker and Loftus seek to encourage those who seek affirmation of their skepticism or unbelief. Barker concentrates on the emotional, the social: "you are not alone", "you are not a bad person". Loftus focuses on the ideas, the dogma: the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies, the supposedly biographical accounts in the New Testament are demonstrably fictitious, the attempts by contemporary theologians to construct a coherent interpretation of the contradictory mess are failures, and so forth. If you have read some of the authorities that Loftus cites - Mackie, Martin, et al - I would still recommend his book, because he pulls all of the threads together in a compact and accessible manner. If you are unfamiliar with the literature, Loftus may be all you need. (Add Hitchens for spice, of course!)

I recommend all three books.

"Jesus loves me, this I know, 'cause the Bible tells me so" was a mantra central to my religious life from childhood through college, then seminary and finally 4 years of the ministry. It's been over 40 years since I left that "calling," having finally and wrenchingly started seriously thinking about what I was believing and preaching. It was a lonely exodus, and I would have given a lot for a thoughtful and encouraging book like this. Barker's work is extraordinary, as is the equally compelling volume by John Loftus (Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity). Like myself, both men were trained (conditioned) to see things from the inside. Critical thinking was only encouraged to develop counter-arguments for straw men positions touting everything that was not us. Contradictions and anamolies were papered over or explained away through convuleted, self-serving reasoning. Revisionist history was employed through the prism of "knowledge" because, after all, "the Bible tells me so." We were proper atheists toward every religion that was not our religion. From Darwin to Schweitzer (The Quest of the Historical Jesus) to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we had to hang on to the "fundamentals" of our house built on sand.

Now, finally, we have the scholarship and bravery of Barker, Loftus, Ehrman, David Mills, Hitchens, Dawkins and others who have shown a light on the ignorance, denials and outright deceptions pervasive in Christianity. Of these, for those of us who were or are "believers," Barker's work is the single best effort. Dan's theme is "truth is truth," and in pursuing this theme in his own intellectual journey, he has come to conclusions that are irrefutable. Further, he and Loftus show us the value of living life for and in the here and now, without the shackles of mind-numbing religious authoritarianism. Thank you, Dan!

I didn't make it to the end. Each chapter seemed to rehash the prior one, with a few additional anecdotes. Overall I'd say this would have made a good article for a magazine like The Atlantic, but there isn't enough meat for a full length book. I'm glad he saw the light though!

Godless is one of the best descriptions of how a person steeped in religion finally recognized it for what it was and changed to atheism. The task was exceedingly difficult and unfortunately few are able to make this change. The hope of this book is to show others with deep religious training that they also can cast off the bondage of religion and open the door to rational thinking.

Deep penetrating look at the Bible, Christianity, and religion in general. Once one strips away the emotional side of a belief and views it with rational intelect, you see it in a whole new light. It takes guts to do this. Dan Barker did so with eloquence and intelligence.

This is a very good, comprehensive, and well-written book. When I bought the book I knew nothing about Barker. I didn't know that he had become a leading atheist, that along with his wife Annie Laurie Gaylor, he became the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, or that he had become a well-known writer and author. I was just intrigued by the title that a preacher had gone from being an evangelical to a non-believer. That story itself is interesting, but it's only part of the book. With his intimate knowledge of the Bible, Barker goes on to make very detailed arguments related to Christian myths and beliefs. In portions of the book, he gets pretty seriously philosophical, enough so that you have to expend some intellectual effort to follow his arguments. Unlike the "Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse" -- Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett -- Barker has actually lived the life of a preacher. It deepens his understanding. If you were just going to read one book on atheism, this one might be a good place to start.

I was really excited to get started reading this book, but about a third of the way through I'm finding it a bit tedious. I loved hearing how the author transitioned from preacher to atheist, but now it seems that all he's doing is presenting his argument from every minute angle possible. Still glad I bought it, but not sure I can finish it!

Barker's "Godless" serves as an excellent primer for some basic (and not-so-basic) reasons why a person shouldn't affirmatively believe in a god. It's mainly targeted at Christians, and mostly of the Protestant Evangelical brand, but its broader message (especially the philosophical points it makes) are well applicable to most theism.

Other reviews have covered various details of the book's content at length, so instead I'll focus on what I got out of it as a firm and committed agnostic (former Orthodox Christian):

The Good:
--Engaging and moving account of Barker's journey from fundamentalist theism to rationalist atheism. His enumeration of particular thoughts and mindsets will strike deep chords in most Christians.
--Excellent and nuanced discussion of some of the higher philosophical arguments for and against God. Complex and somewhat obtuse, but highly compelling once understood.
--Particularly well-reasoned and hard-hitting discussion of the historical-critical method and its implications for the Gospel accounts and the historical Jesus.
--Explains in simple language why divinely-ordained morality is unworkable and how men can be good without God.
--Generally takes a less rabid and polemical tone than folks like Dawkins and Hitchens; Barker is as sympathetic to Christians as he is unrelenting to Christianity, and this makes it more readable and appealing to the audience that actually needs to hear what he has to say.

The Bad:
--Rough around the edges when it comes to dogmatics. Barker's Christian background was quite theologically rudimentary, and it shows when he talks about the details of doctrine, especially when it comes to Catholicism; Orthodoxy, unsurprisingly, goes unmentioned. This leads to unfair and inaccurate characterizations and conclusions (such as his bizarre anthropomorphism-filled "letter" from God to a theologian), which are sure to turn the true believer off and cause dismissal of his many more valid and hard-hitting points.
--Odd focus with certain arguments. Barker spends pages and pages dissecting the rather easily refuted Kalam Cosmological Argument, while giving far more common arguments (e.g. teleological, argument from morality, argument from beauty, argument from reason) only a cursory treatment. He does a good job covering everything he covers, but his focus seems more tailored to his personal interests than to detailing the fallacies of the most common arguments and the nuances of their superior alternatives.
--The significant portion of the book devoted to debunking "Biblical morality" was an huge disappointment. Barker unapologetically uses only the most rabid and fundamentalistic interpretations of quite a few Bible verses to prove that the morality set forth in the Bible is unacceptable. This refusal to accept potential ambiguities and alternative views amounts to basically a straw man thrown at the totality of Christianity. It's a real shame, because his conclusion is sound, and he could have much more persuasively made his case had he extended every interpretative benefit of the doubt to show that no matter how you play with it, Biblical morality contradicts universal ethical norms.
--I was bugged by Barker's occasional equivocation. For example, he uses a contemporary definition of "love" and thereby argues that New Testament morality is silly because it advocates warm fuzzies toward one's enemies. "Love" as set forth in the NT is, of course, not an emotion at all, but a mindset, an approach, a commitment to compassionate action (hence its common rendition as "charity" until late in the past century). Such rhetorical tactics are beneath Barker, particularly when he spends so much time taking Christians to task for intellectual disingenuity.
--Finally, I was quite annoyed whenever Barker committed the fallacy of composition, i.e., "Christians do immoral things, so therefore Christianity is immoral." Barker often fails to clearly separate what's taught from how it's understood, and equally fails to distinguish that from what people actually do and how it relates back to the teaching and understanding. I imagine he would jump all over any individual who asserted that Stalinism means atheists as a whole teach and are disposed to evil, so it's vexing to see him fall into the same polemical trap, and I could see a Christian totally tuning him out after rhetorical fallacies like this and his occasional equivocation.

In sum, the book is largely excellent, an easy and compelling read, both a gripping personal story and a high-minded intellectual endeavor. Barker has generally done his homework extensively, and it shines through. While marred by a few significant flaws that prevent my recommending it without reservation, "Godless" is a great read that is well worth the time of both atheist and open-minded believer alike.

Dan's personal story from belief to non-belief is intimate and revealing and honest. Anyone who has struggled with the inconsistencies and contradictions in all religions will relate to his journey. But wait till you get to the center of the book! Two explosive chapters! The first one answers why we no longer have to cling to an "Un-caused First Cause." And the second one is a letter from God to Theologians that would make even St.Thomas Aquinas squirm. These two chapters are worth the price of the book.
I couldn't put it down.
Bill Cummings, author of Keep The Faith - or Not! Is Faith Really a Gift From God?

This book has helped me become more solidified in my belief that religion is not helpful to my growth and that it actually keeps me from being curious and encourages me to be unkind to others who are different. This book covers deconversion, contradictions in the Bible, and how to have meaning as a unbeliever. Great for anyone with doubts who needs a little encouragement to take the leap from religion to reason

While I have titled this review "Dan Barker 1, God 0" I must say that with this brilliant book, the score in Dan Barker's favor has to be much better than that; I just didn't know what other number to put down. Points get scored on just about every page, to the effect that religion simply doesn't measure up, any way one looks at it. And Dan Barker has good reason to know--if ever there was an inspiring story of someone's struggling up from being an evangelical Christian to being an atheist, this is it. The gap between fundamentalist minister and eloquently outspoken atheist could scarcely get any wider, and it's an amazing transition for anyone to have made.
In fact, the first thing that occurred to me while reading this book was that although Barker is a writer of rare intellectual acumen--with lucid style, clear and crisp logic, and intricate but highly readable arguments--he obviously has had these writing and thinking abilities all his life, even back when he was a victim of evangelical religion. One has to reflect, anew, that religion can get its clutches even into those minds most admirably equipped to resist it, though with such minds the stranglehold of unreason should be only temporary. Unhappily, a lot of people don't ever make the transition, and the story here, of Barker's breaking free of the very worst mind-numbing effects of religious superstition, is truly memorable.
He examines the reasons people have given for believing in God, and finds them lacking. He points out that it proves nothing for believers to appeal to the fact that there is a whole long-standing lore about religious belief, as one could make the same argument to justify believing in Santa Claus, there being a vast literature, body of music and ritual, and so on, "proving" the existence of jolly old Saint Nick. Just as in the end it's the fertile imaginations of children keeping all this alive, so with religion and belief in God.
Barker rejects the notion (often leveled against writers against religion) that one must be an expert in theology to take religion on; this, as I recall, has been an objection often thrown in Richard Dawkins' way. With characteristically simple yet effective logic, Barker simply replies that if that were the case, most Christians would have to be thrown out of church for not knowing any theology to speak of. (A friend of mine used to say, "I don't have to be an architect to know when a building is falling down around me.") And why, Barker wonders out loud, do ministers who know nothing about science get away with making (pseudo-)scientific pronouncements?
Faith and blind belief, Barker argues, are the problem--if what one believes is really true, why would anyone resist its being tested by science and by logical argument? Yet religious believers do often resist this. Barker calls faith "a free lunch"--it's "a way to get there by now doing any work." Touché.
Against the notion of "intelligent design" Barker simply points out that the supposed complexity of the universe needs no such hypothesis, as a gradual evolutionary development is quite adequate for explaining the world in which we find ourselves: "Evolution explains how complexity can arise from simplicity." One of my favorite lines in the book: "People who are impressed with the design argument are like the guy who is amazed at all the rivers that were made to flow along state borders." Delectable.
Barker goes on to demolish, in his somehow gentle yet uncompromising way, the other bogus arguments for God: mystical "experience" of God (nonexistent outside of the mind), popularity of the belief-system (but a lot of horrible things have been popularly agreed upon throughout history), the specious equating of religious belief with morality, and so on. He takes on the famous Pascal's Wager (the notion that one ought to believe "just in case" there is a God who expects to be believed in) by offering his own Barker's Wager: that one ought not to believe, just in case there is a God (just as probable or improbable as the one most people believe in) who only looks kindly upon those smart enough not to believe in him, so that Christians for example would end up on the wrong side. This is the kind of thing that makes the book so enjoyable, yet Barker manages to do it all without losing sight of the seriousness of his literary purposes.
He goes on to examine Biblical religious traditions with an eye to pointing out that anyone who denies that these texts are preposterously contradictory just isn't paying attention. When one looks at these texts perceptively and fairly, one finds it strange that anyone can take them with such owlish seriousness. All in all, Barker makes the case that people who were in his position--essentially sucked in by insupportable belief-systems--can very well climb up and out, as he has done.
This is a classic. Read it.

I read all the usual suspects, Harris, etc. and this is as good as it gets. I've now bought extra copies to give to some of my more open minded friends. Any others would have heart attacks when they can't handle the truth. I highly recommend this to anyone interested in the truth.

Barker's view is a unique one in the secular world in that his past was deeply entwined with the Pentecostal movement. His awakening to reason and logic is passionately displayed in these pages. His knowledge of the faithful and their bible illuminate how these forces hold humanity back and reward ignorance and intolerance.

Now this is a revelation which should be mandatory reading for all those who believe in a god. I am very impressed and appreciative of having been able to read about Dan's life and courage. Simply an excellent book not to be missed - especially by those who have doubts and want to see the other side of the story.

Kudos to anyone who reads every word. No real complaints other than Mr.Barker's philosophy of leaving no stone unturned and then analyzing in excruciating detail what is underneath. I dislike the expression but " Enough Already" is too good to resist.

I bought the book, because I was interested in seeing how his journey from Evangelical preacher to atheist progressed. My own background includes being raised Catholic, embracing Evangelical Christianity in my 20's and eventually, through much study, finally winding up in the agnostic camp. When I discovered Barker was also a professional musician, I discovered another area of commonality, and anticipated the read.

I've read several of Richard Dawkins books and also Christopher Hitchens and had no difficulty in dealing with their at times scathing criticisms of Christianity. What I had hoped to find from Barker was an approach to the subject that would be a bit more sensitive to the issues of how people drift away from their formerly held religious beliefs, and why other intelligent people still retain them.

Instead,I got the feeling that the author has a tendency to be extreme in his personality, and thus could shift fairly easily from militant evangelical Christian to militant Atheist.

I also think the book would have been better had it stayed more focused on examining the issues that led to his loss of faith. These areas could have been explored in more depth.

Instead, Barker felt the need to quickly launch into a full scale attack on Christianity (predominantly fundamentalist style), which has been done by so many others.
From my perspective there was also too much rah-rah material about his own Atheist organization.

Some of the sections debunking various Christian beliefs were handled quite well.
His sections regarding atheism vs religion debates , were interesting on the one hand, but also struck me as being somewhat self-aggrandizing.

For militant atheists, I'm sure there will be lots of amens from the choir (pun intended). For those who fall into the less militant agnostic camp, it's some more food for thought. But for those who may wrestling with their faith, and pursuing truth over familiarity, I don't think it would be that compelling.

I've read several of Bart Ehrman's books ( e.g "Misquoting Jesus") , and find his approach to religious topics, also as a former Evangelical minister, much more palatable.

In conclusion, I'd say Barker's book has a good deal to offer but also missed the full potential it might have had.

I bought the book, because I was interested in seeing how his journey from Evangelical preacher to atheist progressed. My own background includes being raised Catholic, embracing Evangelical Christianity in my 20's and eventually, through much study, finally winding up in the agnostic camp. When I discovered Barker was also a professional musician, I discovered another area of commonality, and anticipated the read.

I've read several of Richard Dawkins books and also Christopher Hitchens and had no difficulty in dealing with their at times scathing criticisms of Christianity. What I had hoped to find from Barker was an approach to the subject that would be a bit more sensitive to the issues of how people drift away from their formerly held religious beliefs, and why other intelligent people still retain them.

Instead,I got the feeling that the author has a tendency to be extreme in his personality, and thus could shift fairly easily from militant evangelical Christian to militant Atheist.

I also think the book would have been better had it stayed more focused on examining the issues that led to his loss of faith. These areas could have been explored in more depth.

Instead, Barker felt the need to quickly launch into a full scale attack on Christianity (predominantly fundamentalist style), which has been done by so many others.
From my perspective there was also too much rah-rah material about his own Atheist organization.

Some of the sections debunking various Christian beliefs were handled quite well.
His sections regarding atheism vs religion debates , were interesting on the one hand, but also struck me as being somewhat self-aggrandizing.

For militant atheists, I'm sure there will be lots of amens from the choir (pun intended). For those who fall into the less militant agnostic camp, it's some more food for thought. But for those who may wrestling with their faith, and pursuing truth over familiarity, I don't think it would be that compelling.

I've read several of Bart Ehrman's books ( e.g "Misquoting Jesus") , and find his approach to religious topics, also as a former Evangelical minister, much more palatable.

In conclusion, I'd say Barker's book has a good deal to offer but also missed the full potential it might have had.

The author's eloquently worded journey of faith, uncertainty and ultimate freedom from religion is one that millions of non-believers can relate to and embrace. Poignantly irreverent and seasoned with just the right amount of humor, I would recommend this book to anyone.

I would like to give this book five stars, but there's a point it drags... I think it's the second to last chapter. Barker goes into immense detail over the many contradictions in the bible. Way too much detail. Other than that, excellent read!

I thought Barker's previous book, Losing Faith in Faith, was better. It covers the same material, but is better organized, better written, and shorter. As I read this book, I found myself wondering again and again, "What's new here?" It seems Barker wanted to publish a book to cash in on the popularity of the New Atheist movement.

Dan Barker tells his amazing story from being a fully-dedicated Christian fundamentalist preacher to one of America's leading vocal Atheists. This book was a pleasure to read. I highly recommend it.

Great Book! It is readable but very thorough. "Godless" took me through ideas even I had never thought of. For me it clearly demonstrated that - The more one reads the Bible, the more Atheistic one becomes. His journey from one religious extreme to the other makes a fascinating tale.

I picked up this book at a local bookstore, and purchased James Loftus' book Why I Am an Atheist as well. I was very curious to find out why an evangelical preacher such as Dan Barker would choose to reject his Christian faith and embrace atheism.

Here's a brief description of the contents of this book:

Part I -- Rejecting God
1. The Call
2. The Fall
3. The Fallout
4. The New Call

Part II -- Why I Am an Atheist
5. Why I Am an Atheist
6. Refuting God
7. Omni-Aqueous
8. Cosmological Kalamity
9. Dear Theologian

Part III -- What's Wrong with Christianity
10. The Bible and Morality
11. Murder, He Wrote
12. For Goodness Sake
13. Bible Contradictions
14. Understanding Discrepancy
15. Did Jesus Exist?
16. Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?

Part IV -- Life is Good!
17. We Go to Washington
18. Adventures in Atheism
19. Life and Death Matters

I appreciate Dan Barker's honest testimony of his change from evangelical Christianity to embracing atheism. Also, I appreciate his respectful tone toward Christians. This is much different from other books by prominent atheists that I've come across.

Dan Barker's faith eroded during the course of 3-5 years after examining the evidence for Christianity and finding it wanting. He is adamant in rejecting the Yahweh-God of the Bible, finding such a God as cruel, merciless, and murderous. Sadly, he recounts how when he rejected his Christian faith, he was treated mostly with rejection by his former Christian friends, which helped to bolster his reasons for rejecting Christianity -- the "loving" Christian community was not that loving after all.

Barker cites many references where he sees as contradictions in the Bible along with doubts about the arguments for God's existence, along with his disbelief in the historicity of Christ and the resurrection.

This is a very challenging read because I hold to completely opposite beliefs from Dan Barker -- I believe that there are rational reasons to believe in God, to believe in the reliability of the Bible, and the historicity of both Jesus Christ and His bodily resurrection.

However, I am glad that I am reading this book, and I'm recommending it to other Christians to read and be familiar with the arguments he presents. I believe there can be an ongoing dialogue between atheists and Christians in a respectful manner.

I do have some questions to pose to Mr. Barker:

a) Dan Barker makes the faulty assumption that the burden of proof rests upon the theist to show evidence that God exists. This is a proposition that he believes by faith and not by concrete evidence. In his recent book There is a God, Antony Flew challenges this assumption. The Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has refuted this assumption, and it has been challenged by philosophers such as Anthony Kenny as well. I challenge Dan Barker to give a concrete basis for why the reader needs to adhere to his assumption. I challenge atheists to provide positive evidence to show beyond a doubt that there is no God. They can't just sit back and say, "I don't have to provide any evidence."

b) Dan Barker needs to provide concrete evidence to back up his adherence to the naturalistic worldview and its tenets. My understanding of the naturalistic worldview are as follows (taken from David Sire):

i) The universe has always existed
ii) Humans are complex machines & interrelation of biological and chemical properties
iii) There is no meaning and purpose in life
iv) Death is the extinction of the personality and the individual
v) Moral ethics is relative

c) What is the basis for an atheist to believe in "good" and "evil"; wouldn't the atheist need to believe in objective moral values? What would be "good" and "evil" in a relativistic worldview?

In page 112, Barker writes, "Ethical systems are based on the worth humans have assigned to life: 'good' is that which enhances life and 'evil' is that which threatens it." Not all civilizations would agree with this definition of "good" and "evil" -- what about certain civilizations that practice human sacrifice or genocide? What is the objective basis for telling these civilizations that they adhere to a "wrong" definition of what is good and evil? Who is the rightful judge, in light of Darwinian ethics?

One of the current challenges in "evolutionary ethics" is how to define goodness with reference to evolutionary theory and then explain why human beings "ought to" be good (Source: Doris Schroeder, Lecturer in Philosophy, "Evolutionary Ethics" Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). You have a wide range of "ethics" according to key evolutionist-thinkers:

C. Darwin -- what is good promotes the most happiness
H. Spencer -- gaining pleasure and avoiding pain / struggle for existence, natural selection, survival of the fittest as prescriptions for moral conduct
D. Hume -- normative rules cannot be derived from empirical facts
G.E. Moore -- whether "good" is a simple or complex property

Michael Ruse states, "Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory ... Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction .. and any deeper meaning is illusory." (Ruse, "Evolutionary Theory & Christian Ethics," in the Darwinian Paradigm, pp. 262-269)

Let me ask you, is there a consensus on what is "good" and what ought to be "good" for all persons? Clearly, no! As David Hume implies, a person can come up with his/her own definition of what "good" is, but that's different from prescribing to others that "good" ought to be.

If Jeffrey Dahlmer, who subscribes to the Darwinian theory of evolution, believes that it is perfectly permissible for him to kill off weaker members of the human species, then on what basis could Dan Barker say his acts are "evil", and stay consistent with the relativistic worldview?
Thomas Huxley states, "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." (as quoted by Dr. Doris Schroeder)

Mr. Barker describes himself as a philanthropist who wants to make the world a better place. I applaud him and respect him for that. But isn't it also the case that Christians who believe in the Judeo-Christian God also contribute toward the improvement of society through deeds of helping the poor and the oppressed? (e.g. Mother Teresa, William Carey who helped to abolish the practice of widow-burning in India, and many evangelical Christians who helped in relief efforts in Thailand and hurricane ravaged places, etc.)

If we were to subscribe to the Darwinian world of "survival of the fittest", what advantage would there be in being a philanthropist as opposed to being a dictator? Why would it be a "good" thing and not a foolish thing for a U.S. soldier to throw his body upon a grenade in order to protect his fellow soldiers in the thick of battle?

Mr. Barker cites bad examples such as John Calvin (which he used in many of his debates with Christians) who commanded that a fellow Reformer be burned at the stake for rejecting his teachings. Yes, sadly, there are a lot of terrible things that were done by "Christians" and the church throughout church history, but clearly Mr. Barker should know that these people were not following the true teachings of Christ. We see that for advocates of any religion. There are those who profess belief but reject the teachings by their actions and behavior.

If Mr. Barker were to be balanced in his arguments, he would have to admit that millions of people were killed by those who embraced the atheistic beliefs of Marxist-Leninism: think of how many millions of innocent people were killed by Josef Stalin; how millions of people were exterminated by Pol Pot and other dictators who advocated atheistic beliefs? If Mr. Barker wants to be selective in his choice of examples and claim that religionists have committed murder in the name of religion, I can claim that certain adherents of atheism have also killed and murdered millions of many innocent people.

Getting rid of religion won't result in a "brotherhood of man", as John Lennon sings in his song "Imagine." Even when religion is done away with, there will still be wars, greed, corruption, and oppression of the poor.

d) Also, I would like Mr. Barker to comment on his assessment of why such a prominent atheist such as Antony Flew (who wrote many influential foundational writings that contributed to the atheistic movement) would abandon atheism and embrace the notion of a Designer. Similarly, Alister McGrath (the author of the Dawkins Delusion) was formerly an atheist who rejected God in his early years of living in Ireland under much religious violence; McGrath changed from being an atheist to becoming a devout Christian. Are both these men "irrational" for changing their worldviews? Is this merely an appeal to authority, which Barker states is an erroneous practice (p. 116)? I don't think it is merely an appeal to authority, because these were educated atheists who came to change their perspective from atheism to theism through investigation of the rational evidence, not through wanting to become a believer in Intelligent Design.

Earlier in the book, Barker argued that if Christians did not remain consistent to their beliefs in Christianity but thought and acted contrary to their beliefs, then that would be a legitimate argument against the viability of that belief. I would say that the same holds true for atheism -- here are two prominent atheists who changed their perspective due to their analysis of rational & scientific arguments.

I would challenge atheists to come up with a viable scientific theory about the origin of the universe, esp. since many researchers in astronomy who subscribe to the Big Bang theory admit that this indicates that the universe had a beginning. To use Barker's definition of "reason" in p. 119, what is the consensus of the scientist's explanation of the origin of the universe according to the tests of verification, repeatability, falsifability, parsimony, and logic?

Antony Flew says this in his book "There is A God" (HarperOne, 2007), "Those scientists who point to the Mind of God do not merely advance a series of arguments or a process of syllogistic reasoning. Rather, they propound a vision of reality that emerges from the conceptual heart of modern science and imposes itself on the rational mind. It is a vision that I personally find compelling and irrefutable." (p. 112) In end of chapter 6, Flew writes, "Some have said that the laws of nature are simply accidental results of the way the universe cooled after the big bang. But, as Rees has pointed out, even such accidents can be regarded as secondary manifestations of deeper laws governing the ensemble of the universe ... So multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind."

How would you respond to Mr. Flew's assessment (after his analysis of the evidence in astronomy that points to the universe being prepared for human existence)?

e) Justice and the Judgment -- Mr. Barker believes that the punishment does not fit the crime and thus God is excessively cruel for sending people to hell. I have 3 responses for that: i) If God is the Supreme Being and King of the universe, to reject God's offer of salvation to humans would deserve an ultimate punishment. The length of time it takes to commit a crime has no bearing on the due consequences of the crime (source: Prof. Alan Gomes); it is heinousness of the crime itself that would merit such punishment. Surely, theft deserves a lesser sentence than treason or the attempt to assassinate the president. ii) If we believe in free will, as I do, then it is not God who sends the people to hell, but it is the person who chooses to go to hell and receive the judgment. iii) If people are ultimately not accountable to punishment for their "evil" crimes, then there would be no motivation to do what is right and there would be no justice. In this world, many "evil" people get away with murder, corruption, swindling, etc.; if there is no ultimate punishment and no ultimate Righteous Judge that metes out that punishment, then why would there be incentive to do what is "good"? Why not get away with murder or swindling? Everyone would just do what is advantageous for oneself - and that would be what's "good". In our country, we have the Justice system that keeps people accountable to obedience to the law; the law spells out what is right and wrong, and if one disobeys the law, then there is punishment according to the degree of the crime. If there is ultimately no Justice System in the afterlife, then there would be no incentive to do good and refrain from evil, and there would be no justice. I'm sure that Mr. Barker believes in justice -- what would be the basis for justice is there is no Judge and no Judgment for rewarding the good people and punishing the bad people?

All this aside, Mr. Barker, I'm glad I'm reading your book because I can have a better understanding of your perspective as an atheist. The next time you enter into a debate, why not debate someone like J.P. Moreland or William Lane Craig, who would better represent the evangelical Christian camp?

I throughly enjoyed this book. I would recommend it to anyone. I don't typically read books but I find this genre really interesting. I won't go into further detail of the book because other people tend to critisize freethinker's opinions on great books such as this.

As a memoir, this book is top-notch. As a catalogue for further information, this book is top-notch; the bibliography is worth the price of the book. The writing is a bit simplistic, and some of the points go beyond cynical into nasty land. Even if the reader is in total agreement with the points brought out, e.g. the contradictions in the Bible, the human ugliness of the Old Testament god, the R-rated sacrifice of the New Testament god, etc., it's not necessary to be demeaning about it. I think this is a tendency of atheists, in general. They feel "used" by their religious upbringing, so they want to dish out the dirt. Barker seemed to be working through some of his psychological hangups.

Dan Barker successfully proves that God does not exist. Indeed, if a God did exist, he could never have allowed this writer to publish his thoughts. How could an omnipotent God ever have created an intelligence so antithetical to his thoughts? A stone bigger than he could lift?

While Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists is extremely well-written and researched; I, personally, found Barker's attitude arrogant and somewhat egotistical. His beliefs as a born-again fundamentalist christian are disturbingly naïve and unquestioning, but once he becomes an atheist he is nearly as arrogant in trying to convince everyone else of his new position.

Barker sums up his book with a few chapters analyzing his life as an atheist and his work with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which actively challenges issues dealing with Church and State consitutionality. His personal relationship with his wives, family, and other preachers or atheists adds little to his theme and could easily have been left out.

However, most of Barker's rationale is on a par with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins in debunking theism. "godless' is a new book that represents the voice of reason and is well worth reading.

Godless was written by Dan Barker, a former evangelist minister and Christian songwriter who renounced religion after 19 years in which he converted thousands to the faith that he no longer holds as an avowed atheist. The most shocking statement in the book is Barker's admission (p.161) that "During all my years of preaching, I simply assumed that the bible was the rock-solid foundation of morality, and it never crossed my mind to examine that assumption." In other words, throughout the years in which Barker was guiding people toward the faith that he now renounces, he never once stopped to question what it was that he was preaching. Disregarding entirely the feelings of those to whom Barker is effectively saying: "Sorry, I was just kidding", he explains (p.52) "Although my deconversion to atheism was intellectual, not emotional, I suppose it is true that I suffered some "deep disappointments." I was initially saddened, for example, to learn that the bible is not as reliable as I had been taught to believe it was."

The above comments should be presented as a caveat emptor on the entire book. If Barker truly did never consider the veracity of the book on which he was basing not just his own livelihood but the trust of those who asked for his guidance, then his "intellectual deconversion" was simply an admission of intellectual laziness on his part through the moment when it occurred to him to "examine that assumption" on the basis of which he had earned a good living. The basis for Barker saying that "the bible is not as reliable" is textual criticism, which has been around since long before Barker started preaching. But Barker does not accept any responsibility for this oversight, rather he lays the blame on the God in whom he no longer believes. (p.31) "If what I felt was phony, why would a good God allow me to be so deceived? (And how does anyone else know that they are not being deceived as well?)"

Barker at least anticipates our natural question on hearing of all this new-found knowledge on his part (p.68) ""You thought you were right before and you think you are right now?" Well, yes, I do think I am right now, and I am zealous about it. If zealousness is a fault then all [sic] preachers are guilty. If advocacy is good, it is good for all of us. "You were wrong before, maybe you are wrong now." If that is true, I will admit it and apologize, like I have already shown I know how to do." I hope all of the people heeding the words of the newly zealous atheist are comforted to know that if the depth of his intellectual attachment to atheism turns out to be no greater than to his former zealous theism, he will admit it and apologize.

One would imagine that Barker would have learned a little cognitive humility, but none is apparent in this book, given that matters of opinion are presented as if axiomatic, e.g. (p.92): "the probability for the existence of a supernatural being can be safely dropped to zero." (p.138) "Things that exist are measurable" [I wonder what scale he has in mind for beauty, love, faith, etc.] (p.265) "The Gospels were written no earlier than 70 C.E., and most likely were written during the 90s C.E. and later." (p.275) "You can have miracles, or you can have history, but you can't have both."

I appreciate good writing whether by believers or atheists such as Loftus and Lobdell, whose books I am delighted to have read and reviewed. But I cannot count Barker among these; he is first and foremost a zealot and only secondly attached to a cause. There is no greater depth to his justification of his new worldview than the "I simply assumed ... it never crossed my mind" couplet above in relation to his former belief and advocacy for the Creator. (p. 170) "Speaking for myself, if the biblical heaven and hell exist, I would choose hell. Having to spend eternity pretending to worship a petty tyrant who tortures those who insult his authority would be more hellish than baking in eternal flames. There is no way such a bully can earn my admiration." "earn" ... ?!?

I'm disappointed in this book. I'm happily atheist and am looking for books for someone who is really struggling with the cognitive dissonance that being a Christian entails. I was excited to find an "deconversion" account by a preacher with thorough knowledge of the Bible, but am so disappointed that Barker often peppers his entirely valid arguments with chiding and mockery. For example, there's a whole chapter where he takes on the persona of God and writes a letter to a theologian for help. These bits are probably attempts at humor, but they seriously undercut the credibility and rapport that he could have built with the people who need to read his account the most. I wish I could find a first-hand account like Barker's, but written in a consistently thoughtful, respectful tone. The closest I've found so far is Atheism Explained, by David Ramsey Steele. Unfortunately, Steele doesn't seem to spend as much time as Barker deconstructing the resurrection, which seems to be pivotal to the belief structure of the person I'm trying to pry away from religious confinement. I will probably recommend Steele as the primary reference, and Barker as a secondary source on the resurrection as legend.

Dan Barker does a lot of circular thinking in his book, Godless. Circular thinking is something he won't allow in opposing arguments. His thoughts remind me of a spoiled little boy who hasn't gotten his way and is tired of waiting for his answer. No wonder Mr. Barkers impression of God is so small. He has tried to fit Him into his own small mind. Ever try to have a conversation with someone who will not listen to any other point of view? That's the way Dan Barker communicates his opinions in this book. Actually, reading this book has helped solidify my Christian foothold and clear up some of the curiosities surrounding why an atheist will believe in no god.

There are enough people giving five stars to the book who have eloquently and comprehensively explained why so. What I want to contribute here is that Dan Barker belongs to the Promotheus Society. This is not only a high IQ society, but to put it into context, the people in that group are smarter than 99.9995% of the population of the world. This guy could ace any university examination whether it be in Law, Medicine, Engineering or Accounting. Dan's extraordinarily high IQ alone, should be enough to persuade the average Joe to have a read, at least you will feel a lot smarter and be a more reasonable person after reading the book.

Re: Godless By Dan Barker
--
After 19 years of indoctrinating,convincing, and addicting thousands of naive people to 'have faith' and 'believe' in hearsay fairy-tales and atrocious lies passed down by many generations of ignorant parents, and "Preachers", "Preacher" Dan barker intent upon increasing his knowledge of "Christianity" and it's origins; found through his intense research that "Christianity", the "Bible" and faith therein is totally absurd, and irrational!
25 years after Preacher Dan Barkers announced declaration: "There was no supernatural realm, no God---", and that he was an "atheist" he wrote this book "Godless", a memoir that tells his story. The first 44 pages contain the most pertinent information, and facts, and some additional information is contained in the 100 pages up to page 144.
I consider the pages after page 144 to be a total waste; and, that those pages should have been used to convey some sort of an apology to all those thousands of people that "Preacher Barker had spent 19 years corrupting their minds!
The former Preacher Dan Barker should also attempt to help all those thousands of people recover from the mental corruption and insanity he had forced upon them!
-
A heroic memoir----- But, Ex-Preacher Barker Owes Thousands, More Than An Apology!
-

The first part of the book in which Barker tellus us his story growing up a fundamentalist christian and dedicating his life to its ministry is fascinating and, I believe, sincere.

The second part of the book, however, baffles me. It is just as fanatically atheistic as he was fanatically christian. Barker even speaks about the atheist songs he has written, following a successful career as a christian musician.

This book is unlikely to do anything for someone "on the fence". It may even put them down.

Barker has replaced one set of beliefs with another, rather than, like most atheists, just being an unbeliever.

I was disappointed with this book. It could have been a fascinating insight into how someone kept their Fundamentalism afloat, how they came to view those beliefs as faulty and how a replacement worldview was formed. Instead, the author fumbles and bumbles his way through it. It was all a bit confusing because the things that eventually changed his mind he actually had the facts wrong on a few of them. He strays into Physics, which he doesn't understand, and gets terribly hung up on the Ontological Argument.

What this book isn't is sophisticated, well researched, cogent or lucid. It's all a bit rambling. It's not been edited well; a good editor could have gone through this with a red pen and tightened up the copy a lot.

One of the contributing factors that saw me lose my Christian faith was how difficult it was to have sensible conversations with other Christians on the many gaping flaws in the Biblical worldview. These discussions were invariably unsatisfactory because I was coming at it from an angle of reason and logic and that's not really the way of Faith. Christianity makes little or no sense, ethically or logically, and theologians and laypeople go on these wooley, confused, bafflingly circular arguments to justify it all. Well, this book is like that, except arguing for Atheism. I would be embarrassed to recommend it to a religious friend (not that I have many left) who wanted to read of someone going through the same thing.

On the plus side, Dan Barker seems like a likeable guy and his transparency and candour around this life change speak to his integrity. I'm sure the errors he makes in quoting the bible, commenting on Physics and in the several contradictions are entirely accidental. Again, a good editor should have picked this up.

Much better books have been written by Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and the lamentedly late Christopher Hitchens.

I think it is good that atheists are sharing their stories about leaving the faith. So many Christians think it is impossible to leave, if you are a true Christian. Why do they believe that? Because the Bible says it, and they think the Bible is true.

A verse against a true Christian leaving the faith:
1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."

One which says they can:
Hebrews 6:4-6 "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

So yes, you can use the Bible to pick any conflicting opinion on this matter.

There are also many current pastors that no longer believe, but they still preach because they can't do any other job (they think), at least, not one that pays as well as their current preaching job. Even a seminary professor told me that he thought this was true too (that there are currently preaching unbelievers).

I know a former preacher that is still struggling with how to come out to his friends and colleagues.

A very interesting and thought-provoking story of Dan Barker's journey from evangelist to famous atheist debater. The story of his life is most interesting. There are a few chapters in the middle that explore bible verses to show inconsistencies and the immorality of the bible, which for me got a little tedious. Maybe this is more interesting to bible scholars or very religious folks. Dan Barker reads his own book in a very clear voice.

Godless by Dan Barker is an update of his lesser-known 1992 book, Losing Faith in Faith. According to Barker himself, the original was published in-house by his own organization because no other publisher wanted it. Losing Faith was a bestseller year after year, but only within the small groups of secularists and freethinkers who touted it. In the years since, interest in non-religious viewpoints has grown exponentially thereby prompting another publisher to ask for an update and release it again.

At a young age Dan Barker committed himself wholeheartedly to being a Christian. His specific beliefs were evangelical, fundamentalist and Pentecostal, but from his own viewpoint he was simply a humble follower of Jesus, living according to the gospel. This is perhaps the most important part of Barker's case against belief and religion. Very few form their spiritual beliefs from a position of reason and logic, and therefore criticisms of one's religion often comes across as heartless and missing the point. As the argument goes, belief in God is a deep spiritual and emotional connection which non-believers don't experience and therefore cannot possibly understand. Dan Barker does understand because he lived the life. And if you read his story you'll see that he lived according to the Bible more closely than probably any person you know. His journey from Christian to atheist happened over many years as, one by one, each of his deeply-held beliefs shifted from literal truth to metaphor, and eventually to not worth his time. Barker is also a skilled debater and much of this book focuses on arguments against faith from the hundreds of debates he's participated in.

I read the original book several times when I discovered it over 10 years ago so I was curious how much this new release resembled its predecessor. His personal story is expanded to include more detail which I appreciated, and a few of the chapters containing arguments are refined, no doubt from his debate experience. Much of the material though is essentially the same, which makes sense because most of the arguments haven't changed in centuries.

This book in general is a surprising story about a very divout preacher who became an atheist, the story itself its amazing and transforming. he then uses hes biblical background to make sense of the bible and examine what is right and wrong about the bible's message. Rationality, delusion and reason. As a former christian, who had an atheist convertion by my own self. This book is very interesting and I appreciate his biblican background to show me more about meaning of the bible from an atheist point of view. His background as an evangelical preacher speaks by itself.

I really enjoyed this book. I've read a number of books on the subject of religion and atheism. I have all of the "four horsemen" books about "new atheism". I've read Carl Sagan's thoughts on it. I've read the two books published by punk rocker and biologist Greg Graffin. I've read Bart Ehrman's books on the Bible, and the Atheists Introduction to the New Testament by Mike Davis. I've read Nietzsche's critics of faith and religion. I've read the ideas of CS Lewis, Kierkegaard, and the modern Christian apologist Lee Strobel for Christian viewpoints. I was also raised in Christianity, and studied many other belief systems.

However, this is one of the best books I have read on the subject. The reason being as the author was an evangelical preacher. While Bart Ehrman, the Biblical Scholar that I enjoy reading, was training to be a preacher and went through seminary, then lost his faith, this man did all that and preached as well as wrote Christian music. He discusses many aspects of belief all in the same book. While Dawkins focuses on the scientific and philosophical aspects of belief criticism, and Ehrman focuses on the biblical part, [former] Pastor Dan Barker, focuses on all of these in one book. In addition, he writes in a clear and engaging manner. Most of this is put into an autobiographical framework. This is not just a book on atheism, this is his life story. He tells how he came to an evangelical believer, how he became a pastor and christian songwriter, and how he later turned away from that. He describes the emotional turmoil and thought processes that led him there.

Anyone interested in this topic should read the book.

Dan Barker's "Godless" is a excellent book about a former Evangelical Preacher who became a atheist and why. During the years of migration, Dan tells how he went through intense inner conflict and knew something was wrong. A inner voice--the voice of reason was calling. The book covers many important areas that raise alot of questions---evil in the world, needless suffering by humans, Bible contradictons and immoral acts the Bible supports, did Jesus exist and did he really rise from the dead to name a few. Dan Barker was a very dedicated preacher who loved his earlier life. While reading this book, you can sense his sincerity and the fact he believes he made the right choice for his life. Every theist should read this book with a open-mind and ask themselves if maybe they should make some changes in their own lives.

Saul was said to have had his conversion experience "on the road to Damascus" in the New Testament. It was described as being a sudden event like a seizure where he hallucinated vividly claiming he saw a shining light and heard Jesus' voice. He became Paul and started what we know as Christianity as a result of his "experience" which sounded a lot like an epileptic seizure. Dan Barker had the anti-Damascus conversion experience. In this book he makes it clear how he went from a position of blessed assurance in the literal interpretation of the Bible and Christian fundamentalism to seeing the light of reason and critical thinking that led him to becoming an atheist. There was no bolt from the blue shock but simply a dawning realization that the faith-based claims made by religion are not based in reality. Barker doesn't attempt to make this a thick scholarly tome filled with Hebrew and Greek notations on every bit of historical and archaeological evidence known to us. He provides plenty of detail on biblical criticism, science and history for the non-scholar allowing them to easily comprehend why Barker evolved from fundamentalist to atheist. He gives detailed explanations for the most typical responses made by Christian apologists illustrating exactly why they are in error. This isn't a book that is anti-theist but rather is pro-human and rooted in the natural universe. This is an excellent book for friends and family who have questions about the rational basis for atheism and why religion is pernicious to the long-term success of our species.

I purchased my book after he gave a very entertaining and enlightening lecture at a local university. He is a very warm and friendly person to meet and talk to about this subject. His Humanism comes through in his style of writing which encourages the reader to think for themselves rather than being a slave to the thinking of some alleged "higher authority" which doesn't exist in the natural universe.

The only audience this book would be inappropriate for is the closed-minded who refuse to entertain any evidence that contradicts their fragile faith-based belief system. These people have eyes but refuse to see the light of reason, have ears but refuse to listen to reason and have a mind but refuse to think knowing that reason will shatter their worldview. I highly recommend thus book and I know I will be giving copies of it as gifts to those I know who would benefit from Barker's compassionate message of living the life we have rather than wasting it on trying to gain an afterlife promised by mythical beings.

This book in general is a surprising story about a very divout preacher who became an atheist, the story itself its amazing and transforming. he then uses hes biblical background to make sense of the bible and examine what is right and wrong about the bible's message. Rationality, delusion and reason. As a former christian, who had an atheist convertion by my own self. This book is very interesting and I appreciate his biblican background to show me more about meaning of the bible from an atheist point of view. His background as an evangelical preacher speaks by itself.

As a former long-time Christian minister, Dan Barker can easily defeat any Christian televangelist in a debate. Matt Slick, Michael Licona, Dinesh D'Souza and other Christians have been defeated by the great author Dan Barker. The Jefferson Bible is a better Bible version than the irrational Geneva Bible. The human race is obviously much older than what the flaky Christian Bible states. According to The Bible, there are only 76 generations of people from the first human (Adam) to Jesus Christ (Luke 3:23-38 and Matthew 1:2-17). Some inflammatory Bible verses are 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and Numbers 31:17-18.

I really enjoyed this book. I've read a number of books on the subject of religion and atheism. I have all of the "four horsemen" books about "new atheism". I've read Carl Sagan's thoughts on it. I've read the two books published by punk rocker and biologist Greg Graffin. I've read Bart Ehrman's books on the Bible, and the Atheists Introduction to the New Testament by Mike Davis. I've read Nietzsche's critics of faith and religion. I've read the ideas of CS Lewis, Kierkegaard, and the modern Christian apologist Lee Strobel for Christian viewpoints. I was also raised in Christianity, and studied many other belief systems.

However, this is one of the best books I have read on the subject. The reason being as the author was an evangelical preacher. While Bart Ehrman, the Biblical Scholar that I enjoy reading, was training to be a preacher and went through seminary, then lost his faith, this man did all that and preached as well as wrote Christian music. He discusses many aspects of belief all in the same book. While Dawkins focuses on the scientific and philosophical aspects of belief criticism, and Ehrman focuses on the biblical part, [former] Pastor Dan Barker, focuses on all of these in one book. In addition, he writes in a clear and engaging manner. Most of this is put into an autobiographical framework. This is not just a book on atheism, this is his life story. He tells how he came to an evangelical believer, how he became a pastor and christian songwriter, and how he later turned away from that. He describes the emotional turmoil and thought processes that led him there.

Anyone interested in this topic should read the book.

Dan Barker's "Godless" is a excellent book about a former Evangelical Preacher who became a atheist and why. During the years of migration, Dan tells how he went through intense inner conflict and knew something was wrong. A inner voice--the voice of reason was calling. The book covers many important areas that raise alot of questions---evil in the world, needless suffering by humans, Bible contradictons and immoral acts the Bible supports, did Jesus exist and did he really rise from the dead to name a few. Dan Barker was a very dedicated preacher who loved his earlier life. While reading this book, you can sense his sincerity and the fact he believes he made the right choice for his life. Every theist should read this book with a open-mind and ask themselves if maybe they should make some changes in their own lives.

Saul was said to have had his conversion experience "on the road to Damascus" in the New Testament. It was described as being a sudden event like a seizure where he hallucinated vividly claiming he saw a shining light and heard Jesus' voice. He became Paul and started what we know as Christianity as a result of his "experience" which sounded a lot like an epileptic seizure. Dan Barker had the anti-Damascus conversion experience. In this book he makes it clear how he went from a position of blessed assurance in the literal interpretation of the Bible and Christian fundamentalism to seeing the light of reason and critical thinking that led him to becoming an atheist. There was no bolt from the blue shock but simply a dawning realization that the faith-based claims made by religion are not based in reality. Barker doesn't attempt to make this a thick scholarly tome filled with Hebrew and Greek notations on every bit of historical and archaeological evidence known to us. He provides plenty of detail on biblical criticism, science and history for the non-scholar allowing them to easily comprehend why Barker evolved from fundamentalist to atheist. He gives detailed explanations for the most typical responses made by Christian apologists illustrating exactly why they are in error. This isn't a book that is anti-theist but rather is pro-human and rooted in the natural universe. This is an excellent book for friends and family who have questions about the rational basis for atheism and why religion is pernicious to the long-term success of our species.

I purchased my book after he gave a very entertaining and enlightening lecture at a local university. He is a very warm and friendly person to meet and talk to about this subject. His Humanism comes through in his style of writing which encourages the reader to think for themselves rather than being a slave to the thinking of some alleged "higher authority" which doesn't exist in the natural universe.

The only audience this book would be inappropriate for is the closed-minded who refuse to entertain any evidence that contradicts their fragile faith-based belief system. These people have eyes but refuse to see the light of reason, have ears but refuse to listen to reason and have a mind but refuse to think knowing that reason will shatter their worldview. I highly recommend thus book and I know I will be giving copies of it as gifts to those I know who would benefit from Barker's compassionate message of living the life we have rather than wasting it on trying to gain an afterlife promised by mythical beings.

Same age, similar upbringing. I enjoyed reading about his experiences and how he gradually realized it just doesn't all make sense. I didn't need all the explanations and rationalizations, but some people do, and they are there for a good references.

All the best to FFRF in keeping church and state separate as well as their educational activities.

You've heard all these arguments before, either from Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell or Richard Dawkins. In "godless", however, Dan Baker pulls out all the stops. Hell hath no fury like an evangelistic preacher scorned (except that, being an atheist, he doesn't believe in hell either). His examples are all sound ones and you'd expect nothing less, since his points are based on reason rather than faith. His journey (ascent?) into disbelief is a fascinating ine, even if it comes across as a bit naive in its approach. I found it hard to conceive of a preacher who would be unaware of the inconsistencies, inaccuracies and downright cruelty and pettiness of much of the bible. It's been a known fact since the book was cobbled together 16 centuries ago, and it's why the Catholic Church resisted its translation into the lingua franca for so long. Some things man was not meant to know, I guess. A reader who is a true believer will not be moved by this "apologia for atheists". And non-believers won't find anything new. Dan Baker covers all the big questions: why are we here? is god moral? why do bad things happen to good people? what is the nature of evil? what is "free" will? I suspect that Reverend Baker lost his faith and then, like a tourist lost in a country that speaks a different language, tried to retrace his steps as to how he got there. He found what atheists have alays known, that a belief in a higher power requires faith and trust that, somewhere "out there", it all makes sense, even if this world is chaotic and contradictory. Not having been raised in a fundamentalist household, I may be missing a key factor in Dan Baker's dilemma. I can imagine that if one was brought up to take the bible literally (vs. looking at it as a collection of myths, origin tales, fables and instructional parables) that such an "awakening" to reason would be highly traumatic. My main complaint with the book comes about a third of the way into it. It is here that his argument bogs down in some of the densest writing since the Book of Mormon. He beats the reader senseless with Logic more suited to a grad student in philosophy than the average reader. The refutation of circular arguments made my head spin. But logical postulates aside, the paradox of religion is made very clear. And if you can't handle paradoxes, perhaps you should consider going Zen, where they are celebrated. In the end it's the inadequacy of language (and the absence of the same) that marks true faith, where words only serve to get in the way. You can't adequately describe Bliss, but you can describe, at length, its replacement with reason. As Wittgenstein (himself an atheist) said: "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". Perhaps that's where god lies, in the silence between the words.

Having been a long time member of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and admirer of Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor, I felt it my duty to buy Dan's book and get a reading on the "man behind the foundation." I wasn't disappointed.

Dan's description of his religious fervor, something I (fortunately) never personally experienced; his ability to accept that he had been a victim of what I describe as an unfortunate prevalant social disease -- religiosity; his ultimate escape to reason & reality was fasciating and compelling. It made me wonder if I would have had the strength & courage to break free from such deeply rooted religious indoctrination.

Excellent synopsis of biblical contradictions and absurdities; examples of Christian apologetic tacts that fall flat when exposed to the fresh air of Dan's logic and reason; and sound retorts to the hackneyed Christian platitudes founded in common sense.

Dan Barker's story and his contribution to the movement makes him worthy of the title Heroic atheist.

Like many others, I found GODLESS not only interesting, touching and funny but also (if I may say it) inspiring. The story of the transformation from singing evangelist to adamant non-believer captures the reader right away. The author understands (unlike many atheists) that religious people - like most people - do not believe for negative reasons but because they think it is the right thing to do. Most of them have taken the social aspect as their personal religion and are comfortable with the opportunity religion provides for them to help their fellow human being.

The best and worst were the chapters on the Bible. The thorough drubbing of inerrancy, prophecy, biblical history and muth were given excellent treatment. However, viewing period customs (slavery, polygamy) through a modern lens is unwise. The Constitution, one of the greatest products of rational minds, implicitely endorses slavery yet we use it - editing outdated parts. Our descendents will probably decry us for eating meat or piling on crushing, unsustainable debt for our children. If someone had asked JFK about two men marrying or burning the flag he would have thought them nuts. Times change. The deconversion of his parents rang hollow in that few elderly evangelicals suddenly decide they've followed a lie their entire lives. Something else was going on.

The author is active in separation of church and state issues and has taken action when that line is crossed. The biggest problem for the "atheist movement" is the tie-in with leftist politics in a farily conservative nation. Dawkins (who wrote the unfortunate forward) excels in this and although he may be a pop star to non-believers, he make little headway in the general population. The book opines that religion may be a matter of evolution & biology and that it takes a special kind of person to replace their world view. The reason atheism remains a tiny minority is that few overcome the huge psychological hurdle. As for nonbelieving college kids, this is more likely a case of laziness and rebellion rather than philosophical committment. (Same with his absurd contention that all destitue folks in Africa were tithing - yeah, right.) As Barker says, deconversion takes time, contemplation and realization - and perhaps a good book.

This book (which I bought on the store UK) is a good read and it is interesting to see the mental workings behind a preacher who tries to convert people to christianity, his process of disillusion, and his becoming active as an atheist. The author presents good arguments for atheism and against fallacious arguments which believers offer as evidence for the Abrahamic god. When Barker is on the attack he rightly pulls no punches.

This excellent book is well researched and has a wide-ranging bibliography in support.

Godless has an excellent insight into the conversion and deconversion process. Dan Barker presents and authentic statement of his 'born again' experience and his living in the spirit as he preached. The process of losing faith and becoming an atheist is a bold statement of a man that confronted the questions raised by Biblical contradictions and discrepancies. His experience will reflect the experiences of others that have left fundamentalist thinking for reason. Dan's writing style is conversational and personal. He identifies the issues that most people have on their mind as they are conflicted over the problems they find in a religion that believes the Bible is inerrant. For more depth, you shoud refer to Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus.

This is a very good book. I had not been a big Dan Barker fan, but I am now. He did the extraordinary in fully responding to something I had heard from nearly every Christian I've met in the past ten or so years: "You were never really a Christian." I thought my bono fides were pretty good, having a radical conversion experience at 17, scrubbing my plans to become a marine biologist to go into the ministry, obtaining a biblical studies degree from a respected evangelical college, working in churches and for Billy Graham...but Barker has me over a barrel. I can say with Barker that I loved my Christian experience, and that I am an atheist not because of anger, disappointment, bitterness, or temptation, but just because we found that Christian claims are mistaken. They are not true. It is a painful realization that Barker quite rightly likens to a divorce, but we have to find ways to live with ourselves, and living with a lie can only work so long.
The part of the book that presents various arguments against theism is good. I've read pretty widely in atheist literature, so there was nothing really new for me there, but Barker does have a very pleasing writing style, so what I mostly got out of that section are ideas for better expressing myself on, for example, the problem of evil or Pascal's Wager.
But there's something that just about ruins the book, I think, and that's the Richard Dawkins foreword. First I must state clearly that I have enormous respect and affection for Dawkins, go to his website every day, have read nearly all of his books and articles, and count myself a huge fan. But with Dawkins, when it comes to religion you know what you're going to get, and the offering here is typically unsympathetic, coldly rational, and comically insulting. In other words, some of the very things that make his things written for atheists so compelling, fresh, and entertaining.
But in the context of the first words a reader is going to see in a book that might otherwise have made an IDEAL gift for a person questioning her faith, the tone and attitude are toxic. Again, don't misunderstand--I agree with everything that Dawkins wrote. But if an inquisitive mind is a fly, and the rest of the book is honey, the reader has to somehow buzz through a mist of vinegar to get to it. I realize that Dawkins has--deservedly--incredible cache among atheists. But this was a book with promise to reach well beyond the choir that's always singing to itself, and let some fresh air and sunshine into the lives of benighted fundamentalists. I am concerned that with Dawkins's contribution, this is less likely.
On the other hand, I could be completely, utterly mistaken. Some person with a growing set of questions might come to that foreword and think, "Yes! Finally! Someone is saying the sort of thing that I've been starting to think for some time now, and not just pitter-pattering around it but jumping in with both feet, making a statement, taking a stand. I like that very much and am now much more receptive to the rest of what the book has to say."
But I don't think that's the smart money bet.

I picked this book up on a Friday and finished it by Sunday. I couldn't put it down once I started.

As a preacher for 20 years, converting anyone from Catholics to Atheists, speaking in tongues and writing Christian music, Dan Barker describes his times as a young man through his walk of becoming a Christian Evangelical to an Atheist, on his own account through the realization of the illogicality the bible teaches us.

Barker came to become a free thinker all on his own. His search for knowledge outside of Christianity books and reading enlightened him to lead a life of rationalism, free thought and best of all, freedom from religion.

This is a great book to read as a believer or not. What's inside of the mind of a preacher that starts to think for himself over time of the things he actually preaches. Although Barker lost many close friends, his wife over his new lifestyle without religion, he is now married to another leader in free thought and helps run the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a organization to keep Church out of the State.

The book also includes some great information on the contradictions and discrepancies the bible offers. It is a great read for anyone that is fascinated with religion, either to debunk it or embrace it to read about one mans quest for the actual truth.

Thought-provoking Bible study, even if in the negative.

Coming from a former full gospel preacher makes this compelling, though somewhat marred by overkill. He uses the same Biblical quotes several times--should have been stopped by the editor. And I could have gladly done without knowing the agenda of his current atheist proselytizing movement. So there are about 100 pages that actually hurt an otherwise fascinating book.

I've read many, many books about Atheism/atheism in the past year, and this is the best book so far. Barker is extremely well researched and communicates his research well without getting too technical for his readers. I was so up-lifted by his storytelling and presentation of science. His research, his experience, his ability to write--were all awe-inspiring. I read the book twice. Thank you, Dan Barker, for doing the work you do.

The startling thing about Dan Barker's writing is how he well tells the story of his journey from Christian preacher to freethinker in a warm, human way, then proceeds to dissect the errors of that former faith with keen precision. Like a letter from a good friend who has abandoned the realm ruled by unreason, the book is both personal and persuasive. Barker is writes sincerely about Christian and non-Christian life, and firmly but without a trace of rancor about leaving the Christian religion. His reasoning is clear, accessible to all, and complete. This is a fine book for an atheist to give to a friend who can't understand their lack of faith, and it makes good reading for anyone who finds it necessary to explain their unbelief to others. This is perhaps the best all-round book on atheism of the last couple of years.

I have to "confess" (haha) that I was kind of expecting this book to be very mild and soft. I was pleased and surprised to find that after the intro regarding Mr. Barker's personal conversion from believer to non, he really laid out a convincing and thorough case for atheism. He's a great writer and I would highly recommend this book for believers, nonbelievers and doubters alike.
If you are interested in this subject, I would also recommend anything and everything by Richard Dawkins (esp The God Delusion) and anything and everything by Victor J. Stenger.

I am not on either side in the review. I just found the book very repetitious. It is also apparent that the author is very intellegent. However, I am not sure that any one person can actually get all the facts. No judgement call, just thought it sounded like Obsesive Complusive writing.

This book was delivered as advertised in a timely manner and at a very reasonable price.

As far as the content of the book, it answers questions that plagues the minds of all beleivers. The questions of why we beleived the things we did and the fact that it is ok to change your mind. We always have that option. I only hope that others can see things for the way they really are and stop feeling guilty about a baseless and dangerous delusion. The very threat of a nuclear exchange because one faith disagrees with another when both are false should scare the pants off everybody.

I just finished reading the book "godless" by Dan Barker, and was extremely impressed. Here is my review of his book.

Barker grew up smack in the middle of the evangelical movement. From a young age he was an enthusiastic follower of Christ and leader in evangelism to the unsaved. He lead missionary trips to Mexico, he wrote songs and plays that were published and widely distributed by Manna Music, he was ordained as a minister, he spoke in tongues, and so on. But after 19 years in the ministry he started to reevaluate his beliefs. And he came to the conclusion that what he believed in, had faith in, simply was not true. That lead to his rejecting his belief in God and a major realignment of his life. But it did not change the central core which was seeking to know the truth and tell others about it. Rather, one could say this change was simply a large step forward in this goal: he determined that his beliefs were in error and he corrected them and continued on. Of course this did not happen overnight, and in the first part of this book is an engaging account of his life as a Christian and his change in direction.

A consequence of his deep involvement in Christian ministry is a deep understanding and respect for Christians. This is in contrast to some of the other recent books on atheism by Dawkins and others that are dismissive of Christian beliefs. Here is someone who understands and experienced Christianity from the inside and the knows the reasons why Christians believe and nevertheless has rejected those beliefs. In this book he provides a clear and compelling account for why he does not believe the Christian message.

In the second portion of the book he challenges some frequent assumptions of the Bible and Christianity. In the chapter titled "The Bible and Morality," he argues that the Bible is not a good moral guide. In the Bible things aren't inherrently right or wrong; rather it is whatever the strongest person around says is right must be right. The strongest person happens to be God, so what ever he is feeling like at the moment is right, even if that includes killing or raping prisoners, sacrificing your son or daughter, or plenty of other horrific things he did or told his followers to do. In the Bible morality relies on authority, namely: might makes right. Humans have no right to be treated fairly or with respect; whatever God decrees goes. One can start to understand with this basis for morality all kinds of horrific acts could be done with the belief that they are God-decreed. And God's moral decrees in the Bible are no better than moral precepts found in other societies. The 10 commandments do not give much useful guidance. Two examples: "Do not make a graven image" does not give moral guidanace. "Do not kill" as an unqualified commandment is not very helpful: are there no exceptions like in self defense? And Barker argues that "kill" is the better translation than "murder". But even if we take it as a prohibition on murder, it is not an improvement on laws that plenty of pagan societies developed on their own. Moreover, it is undercut by the actions of God himself who frequently and somewhat arbitrarily killed people for minor offenses or ordered his followers to kill them.

Jesus himself had many moral failings. One significant example is that he never spoke out against slavery. Rather, from the use of it in his parables and teaching, it seems that he approved of it. Imagine how much human misery over 2000 years could have been eliminated if Jesus, or Paul for that matter, had condemned slavery. His moral exhortations contain plenty of things that aren't wise or moral (and are not followed by most Christians today) such as: Don't make any plans for the future (Matthew 6:34), Don't save any money (Matthew 6:19-20), Marrying a divorced woman is committing adultery (Matthew 5:32), Hate your family (Luke 14:26), and so on.

Rather than requiring an external source to direct us in morality and provide punishment, Barker claims that Atheists have a better source for morality, namely nature itself. "Morality implies avoiding or minimizing harm." The morality of actions is determined based on their effect on humans. Actions are evil because of the harm they cause, rather than because they break a command in a book or because the offend a diety. True morality does not consist in obedience or subservience to an authority, but in rationally choosing actions that benefit rather than harm humans. God is not needed or even helpful in this endeavor.

He addresses a common Christian argument from C.S. Lewis who said of Jesus: either he is "Lunatic, Liar or Lord." I have always been unhappy with this simplistic trichotomy, and Barker adds on a much more likely fourth alternative: "Legend". That is, much of what we have in the Bible regarding Jesus is really legend. He illustrates this with the ressurection stories of which there are 5 accounts in the New Testament. The earliest account written during the lifetime of Jesus followers is by Paul (I Corinthians 15) in 55 AD. This account is understandable as a purely spiritual resurrection. The next account is by Mark, 70 AD, 40 years after Jesus' death and after almost all adults alive in 30 AD would be dead. Accepting that the last 12 verses are a later addition, Mark has no resurrection appearances at all, only a young man saying "he is risen" with perhaps a spiritual interpretation possible. The later accounts written 50 or more years after the event start including physical body appearances of Jesus and other fantastic happenings. The interesting thing is that the earliest accounts have the fewest fantastic or miraculous elements and the later the account the more miraculous elements are included in the stories; a good sign of a developing legend. Additional evidence that it is a developing legend is that the accounts contain many irreconcilable events; it is not possible to create a single account of what happened after Jesus died that includes all the details of all the accounts as they contradict each other. The problem is that Christians today refuse to consider it a legend. Rather they take the oldest accounts, written well into the second or third generation after Jesus, and claim those are the very things that his followers believed right after his death.

In my opinion this is an ideal book for a Christian wishing to critically examine his or her beliefs. I know from personal experience that this type of critique is very difficult to do from inside the faith. But for those Christians who value knowing truth over any particular set of beliefs, here is a book that will challenge them in assessing their own beliefs and reasons for belief.

My journey from a religious person to a freethinker was not as much a pager turner as Dan Barker's was. Mine took some time just as Dan's did, but what makes Dan's interesting is that being a genuinely good person, he does what he thinks is the "right thing" and becomes a preacher. For him, it was the right thing to do at the time. As Dan's life goes on, he continues to do the "right things", and becoming more and more educated in the Bible, he begins to question the verses of the Bible and the foundation religion is built on. Ultimately as Dan continues to educate himself and ask questions, he has to let go of god. To him it was not only the "right thing" to do, it was the only thing to do. Initially, leaving his faith behind put him in some very awkward situations. After the awkwardness and a confession on Oprah?!, Dan's life continues on with the intent of doing the "right thing". Dan is an inspiration to many. He clearly shows that he is not only a very kind, ethical, and caring person, but he is now a very clear thinking person. I'm convinced that any good person (with an open mind, and an open heart) would follow a very similar path. God doesn't make you a good person, you do.

When you're done reading the book, go to YouTube and search on "Dan Barker debate". Dan is also a very talented debater!

Coming from the same Christian fundamentalist background as the author, I had a special interest in this book. I too traveled the long road from superstition and mythology to intellectual awakening and rebirth through atheism. This is the best book on atheism I have yet read, and that includes outstanding works such as "The God Delusion" (Dawkins) and "The End of Faith" (Harris). Barker writes with exceptional clarity and presents a devastating case against theism. I believe that any reasonably open-minded theist could not read the entire book without becoming an atheist.

This could be any atheist's story: growing up embracing religion, applying critical thinking and reason and coming to the conclusion that there is no 'god'. Though Baker clearly disbelieves in the Judeo-Christian system as well as other world religions, he also refers to himself as 'Atheist-Agnostic' in the text. Repetetive at times and a definitely opinionated, but well though-out. If you are ruled by emotion rather than reason, you will probably not like this book. Not recommended for 'fence-sitters' or those who will not let facts get in the way of faith.

Dan Barker's book "Godless" belongs amongst the very best works written in response to the Christian faith.

In his book, he has written with a most reasonable manner, utilizing his great capacity for critical thought, and exhaustive knowledge of Christian doctrine. He pronounces a variety of philosophical arguments against Christianity, brings out refreshing textual criticism of the Bible, and answers questions that believers commonly ask.

Dan Barker is respectful, and I admire that. He does not resolve to attack people, or demean them in any way. He addresses Christianity with a careful approach, sticking to the outlines that he has set out for each chapter.

I recommend this book to anyone interested in the Christian faith-- believers and non-believers alike.

Thank you, Dan Barker, for writing such an admirable book!

I also read Dan's "Losing Faith in Faith". I liked both books, but especially liked the personal account aspect in his first book.

The paradox is that it cannot be denied that religious delusions bring comfort and a sense of community for followers, as well as provide a tax free haven for the manipulative leaders. So, in my opinion, until the human tradition of group delusion is bred out of our genes, the best we rationalists can do is battle for a strong wall of separation between church and state, and encourage others to read books like Dans.

Another kiss and tell ex-fundamentalist preacher book I enjoyed, loaded with humorous anecdotes, is "Justifiable Homicide- Growing up a Baptist Fundamentalist." - Dean Aughinbaugh

"JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE?" -Growing Up A Baptist Fundamentalist-

This book is simply the best book ever on Christian to Atheist conversion. Many fundamentalists will not convert to rational thought on the basis of writings like Dawkins. I am not saying this book will instantly convert any fundamentalist to rational thought, but it is more likely to than many others. It is divided into two parts. There is the personal story of Dan Barker (which is truly amazing) and the reasons why Christianity is false. Barker presents the last part without insulting ridicule.

Great to understand the path to atheism from a former christian. Very clear points and arguments made. The truths discussed in this book are proof positive of the uselessness and frivolous nature of religions

I really enjoyed reading this book; Barker's story is very intriguing and adds a personal angle to his arguments. The book is a great light overview or introduction for the reasoning behind atheism. If I were to suggest any book for the average believer to read to help them understand a little more about why I am an atheist, it would be this book. (If you want something more in depth, go for "Why I became an Atheist" by Loftus.)

Pros:
-- Easy to read and interesting.
-- Being a former preacher, Barker really knows what he is talking about and has some great insights on things like Hebrew translations.
-- Pretty comprehensive and spends just enough time on each subject.

Cons:
-- His personal story, while interesting, gets into too much detail and goes on for what seems like forever. Plus, he already wrote a book about that: "From Preacher to Atheist".
-- For someone who has already read a lot about biblical criticism or the philosophy of religion, Barker does not add a whole lot of new information that you wont already be familiar with.

All in all, I highly recommend this book.

Dan's first book, "Losing Faith in Faith" was a very important book in my departure from religion. But I thought it was a little too antagonistic, a little impersonal, given that it was a collection of articles that he had written for the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

His new book is more of a biography that delves into exactly what happened to Dan as he went from one of the most "on-fire" Christians to a leading atheist. Of course, Dan doesn't pull any punches and tells it like it is. This takes great courage and it's something that I admire in Dan--his ability to look religious people in the eye and without blinking, tell them they're wrong.

For anyone looking for a handbook on the major arguments against religion, I highly recommend "godless". I'd buy copies for all of my Christian family if I thought there was a chance in hell that they'd read it.

A very interesting perspective from an evangelical minister turned atheist activist. The author presents several well thought out arguments against many religious and creationist perspectives without the condescension and bitterness many non-believers are accused of.

If someone in your family or social circle has "come out" as a non-believer, this book can give you some insight. It's not just for heathens.

I read this book for one of the classes(Philosophy of Religion) offered at my college and it was very interesting and thought provoking.

I had a similar coming to faith story as Mr. Barker so that was unexpected and helped me identify with him (I admit that I had not anticipated a similar story to mine and was dreading reading the book). Unlike him I am still a christian. I am, however, a christian who seeks knowledge and am liberal in my faith. I appreciate your honesty with your past and how you offered reasons and realizations. I have ear-marked many pages in the book that caused questions to come up about what I truly believe and I am glad of that. For me, I do not think ignorance is bliss and I would rather know things that make me think than to just blindly go about my day.

I marked this book at a three because of the tone of the book. As I read through the book I became irritated with how the tone appeared insulting and condescending (Many of my classmates, both christian and atheist, felt this way too). I would suggest to Mr. Barker that he might use less quotation marks with certain words or phrases. I understand that the intent might have been to note what phrases were specific to the christian faith but after a while it appeared like he was making fun of what people believe in. It would have been more affective if the tone was more...casual(I cannot think of the right word but talk to everyone regardless of faith like equals). I believe this is more likely to get people to actually read/listen to what someone has to say even if they do not agree with what they are saying. I do not agree with you Mr. Barker, but I do respect you and would like to have seen more respect given to people of differing faith in your book.

I would recommend this book to anyone...perhaps especially if you are a christian because we need to be able to know what it is we are saying and believing. It doesn't mean you have to convert or stop believing but it is beneficial as a christian or an atheist to have knowledge. Thank you for a good read, Mr. Barker.

I have read dozens of books exposing the problems with christianity in search of a book that I could recommend to my family, all of whom are staunch christians. Many of the books out there are written by people that do not have a strong personal experience of christianity themselves and though they may be brilliant books, the christians I know could dismiss them all because the writers haven't "received the calling of the holy spirit". The few books that I have read on the subject that have been written by ex-christians may have excellent content but contain angry undertones which I know would turn the christian reader off.

Enter Dan Barker, a man who was a true believer who has escaped from the prison of christian thinking into the real world with an appreciation for the importance of genuine humanistic morality and the credibility and beauty of observable reality. He has a deep and thorough knowledge of the bible and has truly beheld the christian "experience" first hand. He cannot be accused of taking scripture out of context. He also knows much about the background of the various translations, including the original Hebrew and Greek.

I bought his previous book, "Losing Faith in Faith" hoping that it would be the book that I could pass to my family but though it had great content, I wished that it had been written as a single piece of work rather than a collection of essays and short articles.

In this new book, "Godless", he retells the best parts of "Losing Faith in Faith" as well as newer content and contains a greater emphasis on what I think is important for christians to understand about christianity. His writing was always very good, but 20+ years after his first book, it is even better and this time it is structured as a single, flowing work.

I have bought copies for my family and hope they will read this book with an open mind, if not to liberate themselves from christianity, then at least to understand that there are valid reasons for rejecting it and that life, truth and morality can be appreciated and enjoyed without religion.

This book really hit the spot. I am a former bible college student and I can think of no better mind to help mine than someone who has been there too. This book supported my efforts to do what I had struggled to do for years- get honest instead of continuing to play games with observable facts.

The small chapter on gOD (notice the lower case) questioning the theologian alone is priceless and has so much wisdom that it makes all of the libraries filled with musty, dusty, anachronistic worm riddled theological pulp obsolete. After reading this book you will ask yourself why apologetics still exist as a "profession".

If you only read One atheist book this should be the One. Dan tells a compelling story of his fall from religion and goes on to walk you through many of his arguments. Further, you should then join the Freedom from Religion Foundation

I concur with many other reviewers of this book.

While Dan Barker's story of what led him out of religion into rational thought is captivating, my favorite part of "Godless" was his masterful deconstruction of the Ten Commandments.

Evangelism Insanity from the inside out, Dan Barker's Godless is both a fascinating and compelling read. The first half where he relates his experiences as a minister and faith purveyor is almost like watching Marjoe or Jesus Camp. I bought multiple copies for friends.

This was an absolutely fantastic book and was definitely one of the best books on freethought that I have had the pleasure of reading. Dan Barker focuses mainly on inherent problems and fallacies within Christianity, as well as why religious beliefs in general are incompatible with a rational mindset. I highly recommend this book to people who are skeptical of religion and might be contemplating the prospect of leaving religion altogether. Undoubtedly, this book is destined to become a classic within its own right.

I was browsing through the atheist section in borders and found this book. After reading what it was about, and after reading the first few paragraphs, I HAD to get it. When I started reading the foreward by Richard Dawkins all I kept thinking was "Dang I hope Dan Barker isn't this harsh in this book". Not that I don't like Dawkins, but for me, when I started this book, my feelings were still tender toward Christianity, since I was raised in it, so some of the things he said kind of turned me off at first. I changed through the course of this book. I was Agnostic when I started the book, rather Agnostic Theist, but now I consider myself Agnostic Atheist, after much thinking and speculation and research.

The thing that drew me to this book the most was how an evangelical preacher, someone who was so wrapped up in God and the emotional experiences like tongues, healings, and music, became an Atheist. You know, most Christians like to say things like "A Christian can't lose their salvation. And if they do then they were never a Christian in the first place". I have heard this all my life, and it is frustrating and tiresome. In fact, I could pick out an exact verse in their very own bible that contradicts that phrase. Quite a few, actually. Barker gets to the point, and since he has been in the position before, he understands just how easy it is to get so wrapped up in Christianity; in religion in general. Religion is like a gravitational pull. It's something you can't stop from happening and even if you're way up high, you're still falling; falling deeply and slowly into the lies and false claims. I grew up in a Pentecostal church: I've supposedly "spoken in tongues" but looking back now I know that it was ME who did that, not a supposed god. It was put on and pressured by other people. "If you don't open your mouth you can't speak. Do what God wants you to. Don't hold back". That's what I've heard from them. And if you DO hold back, they will say you disobeyed god. What a horrible thing to put on someone's heart. I started questioning my church when I was around 18. I read Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur when I was around 19. Since then I have been researching Christianity. At first I had doubts, strayed, then got back in the "groove" of being "saved". Then it hit me. In actuality, I had to read the bible to become Agnostic. Just reading the old testament disgusted me. How can people follow such a contradictory, horrible god with no apparent morals? Then I picked up Godless this year. After reading it, I felt a sort of burden lift from me, as if years of worry and fear were being shed away. I have become so much more happier the more I push Christianity out of the picture (and I've had some pretty big problems going on in my mind). After reading this book, I've lightened up so much on Christianity. I can no longer go back to what I used to believe. It's so hard to keep going like this when your whole family still believes in God. I don't want to persuade them to not believe. I don't feel like it is my place. It may be for Barker (well he is one of the world's leading Atheists!), but in all honesty I don't care what people believe as long as it is not illegal and is safe and it doesn't involve me. But that is just me. I am so happy being this way now, with no fear of hell or waiting for a god to strike me down for doing normal, human things. I am now 20, and I am an Agnostic Atheist.

Barker is absolutely, 100%, without a doubt RIGHT when he says that music is the key that stirs the emotions. Without music, there wouldn't be much "experiences" happening in churches across the world. I knew this was true when I read it because I've seen it happen in MANY churches, camps, and conferences I've attended. Music is the tool. Music is the gateway to our emotions. I cry whenever I hear a very emotional song. For some of us, we are moved in a different way. For most women, it is tears. And with most men, it can be tears, or just this abounding joy. I have noticed a pattern in Pentecostal/Charismatic churches that "speak in tongues" and have all the experiences. It's mostly women that do these things. Women are more emotional than men. No, I'm not being sexist (I am a girl), but this is an honest truth. Sure, there are women out there that aren't as emotional as some men, but the overall percentile for emotions is no doubt higher for women. That's just how we are. It's not a bad thing. But the thing is, since so many women are emotional when it comes to god and experiences, it makes more sense that they are clearly letting their emotions control them, not any kind of spiritual deity. Music has such a great impact in churches, perhaps the greatest impact, and so many just don't realize it..

Overall, this book was just brilliant. Barker's life as an evangelical, his fall, his deconversion, his realization of logic and realism - It was all so fascinating to read about. I also have another book to read, called Why I Became An Atheist by John Loftus. I'm letting my oldest sister, who is also Agnostic, borrow Godless when I can. Hopefully she can find time from her busy schedule to read it because I'd really like for her too. Next on my list is The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins - I've already bought it and am ready to read it.

Thank-you Dan Barker for sending your message to the world. It was a delight to read.

If you only read One atheist book this should be the One. Dan tells a compelling story of his fall from religion and goes on to walk you through many of his arguments. Further, you should then join the Freedom from Religion Foundation

I concur with many other reviewers of this book.

While Dan Barker's story of what led him out of religion into rational thought is captivating, my favorite part of "Godless" was his masterful deconstruction of the Ten Commandments.

Evangelism Insanity from the inside out, Dan Barker's Godless is both a fascinating and compelling read. The first half where he relates his experiences as a minister and faith purveyor is almost like watching Marjoe or Jesus Camp. I bought multiple copies for friends.

This was an absolutely fantastic book and was definitely one of the best books on freethought that I have had the pleasure of reading. Dan Barker focuses mainly on inherent problems and fallacies within Christianity, as well as why religious beliefs in general are incompatible with a rational mindset. I highly recommend this book to people who are skeptical of religion and might be contemplating the prospect of leaving religion altogether. Undoubtedly, this book is destined to become a classic within its own right.

I still have an email from Dan Barker from the mid-90's when he was just about the only ex-Christian "preaching" on the Internet. I was desperate for understanding as I made the intellectual and emotionally wrenching journey out of fundamentalism, and he was there for me. "Godless" is a pitch-perfect model of the fundy mindset. If you want to give it as a gift to a somewhat open-minded Christian, razor-out the Dawkins chapter and give it to your friend later, glue it shut, or ask the person to read it at the end of the book: no big deal. Certainly no reason to miss out on what I think is the BEST book out there for the Christian in your life who might have a sliver of an open mind.

Among the past few years a number of books have been published from former Christian fundamentalists turned atheist. Dan Barker's book Godless is no doubt among this camp which includes atheists such as John Loftus, Valerie Tarico, and Edward Babinski. I tend to find these books interesting because I enjoy trying to understand exactly what kind of mind-set led these former Christians to reject their foundational belief systems (I will have more to say regarding this below). So, why a three-star review? Well I'm not a fundamentalist Christian (but rather a progressive Christian) so I actually agreed with Barker on a number of points which I'll cover below. However, I found that most of his arguments and assertions do not warrant the acceptance of atheism. So, lets dive in.

I enjoyed the insight given to the reader in Part 1. This part of the book dealt with Barker's former life as a Christian. He tells of his mission trips to Mexico, his unique songwriting, his passion for evangelizing, and his Christian friendships. All this, I believe, was not written simply to give insight into his former life but rather as a testimony to present to Christians who would label Barker's former faithfulness as "fake". Many Christians cannot believe that an individual who was truly in a faithful relationship with Jesus could ever lose their faith and reject said relationship. "He must not have been a true believer" many Christians will say. But Barker's testimony closes the door on such ignorant comments.

Barker has a whole chapter devoted to listing Biblical contradictions. He does not list all of them (that would take another book in itself) but gives a fair sampling from both Testaments. I wholeheartedly agree that the Bible contains contradictions and discrepancies (this is expected from a collection of 66 writings written by dozens of authors) but Barker fails to realize that this is only a problem for a Christian raised in a fundamentalist backround who takes the Bible to be literally authored by God (inerrant). These contradictions would not affect an Orthodox, Anglican, Catholic or Progressive Christian in the slightest bit. So, do these biblical discrepancies in turn warrant the rejection of the Bible? Not unless the only authority one wants to gain information from is infallible (by the way, if anyone finds an infallible authority in this world please inform me!)

Barker began to amuse me with regards to his statements about faith. Barker states that "Faith is what you need when you don't have certainty." I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. My problem with Barker is what kind of certainty he believes he now possesses that warrants the abandonment of faith. There is nothing in this world we can be certain about. I wonder what exactly makes Barker say with such arrogance that he is certain of anything. He later claims "If something is true we don't invoke faith. Instead, we use reason to prove it" and also asserts that "faith...has never been consistent with reason." Why is this amusing? Because of something known as the presupposition of our cognitive faculties. Can we ever prove the reliability of our cognitive faculties and our reasoning abilities? No, because in order to undertake the task of proving our cognitive faculties we would need to presuppose them first in order for the proof to be valid. But that would mean we presuppose the very thing we are trying to prove. This is the epitome of circular reasoning. Thus, we can never prove our cognitive faculties. This means that reason is not opposed to faith. Quite the opposite, reason is actually grounded in faith!

One contention that Barker asserted over and over regarding morality was that Christians get their morality from the Bible (as if we wouldn't know murder was wrong unless we read the Bible). I don't know what literature Barker has been reading but I have never heard a Christian (except maybe a backwoods fundamentalist) claim that our source for morality was the Bible. No, we claim that our source for morality is God Himself. Thus, once again Barker's adolescent fundamentalist mindset has given him a strawman to attack.

But, the most ridiculous argument put forth in this book was Barker's argument (or lack thereof) that Jesus never existed. Although this is an extreme (and marginal) position to take in the scholarly world, that is not all that makes Barker's argument amusing. Rather, what makes the argument amusing is the "evidence" Barker uses against the historicity of Jesus. His first mistake was referencing Freke and Gandy's The Jesus Mysteries which any reputable scholar would denounce. Making reference to (and obviously borrowing material from) this book almost made we want to close the book and leave it on my shelf. Moreover, Barker claims that all the extra-Biblical sources mentioning Jesus are invalid. All of them? Once again, you will not find a reputable scholar professing such erroneous claims. So then Barker turns his eyes to the Gospels in order to render them unreliable. How does he attempt to do this? By demonstrating that the birth narratives and genealogies are contradictory. Um, tell me something I don't know Barker. The majority of scholars (except conservatives) would agree that the birth narratives and genealogies are most likely legend. However, this does not stop them from finding the rest of the Gospels much more reliable. This is virtually all the evidence Barker puts forth against the existence of Jesus. Does Barker succeed in negating the existence of Jesus? Not even close.

Throughout this book I continued to ask myself how any of Barker's arguments warranted atheism. Are there contradictions in the Bible? You bet! Does the Bible contain immoral aspects? Most certainly! Can the Kalam Cosmological Argument be refuted? Sure, why not! Are there shades of ambiguity covering the Resurrection? Yup! Are there aspects of God's attributes that might be a mystery to us? Of course! These are most of the arguments Barker uses to "debunk" Christianity and I find myself in some form or another agreeing with him! So, why do I remain a Christian and yet he has lost his faith? One thing I've noticed with former fundamentalists such as Dan Barker is that they possess this "all-or-nothing" mentality. "The Bible has an error? Throw it out!" You will rarely see an Orthodox or Anglican Christian lose their faith off of such trivialities that Barker has put forth. Thus, this book does not show how to be Godless, it shows how to be fundamental-less.

Sometimes the reviews are as entertaining as the books. This is written on my kindle, apologies for typos. I have an interest in human nature, psychology and philosophy as well as metaphysics and basic instinct. I never cease to be amazed at the human condition or thought processes. My lack of certain belief would lead some reviews to say i was forced into religion as a child;NOT, had trama as a child that caused doubt; who hasnt?, chose to doubt because its popular; funny i hadnt noticed with the flood of christian recruiters everywhere, or that i must have a lack of interest in religion; also false as i am very curious and try to learn as much as possible about varied religions. Im not motivated by money as others suggested, not one person has dropped by to drop off a load of cash for my research efforts. I still havent read of the adult trama the author suffered that drove him away as one reviewer suggests. Nor am i callous tu suffering. and for the reviewer who suggests atheists are reticent to debate highly emotionally charged debates on morals, be thankful we havent met. Most interesting was while one questions what would impel man to be moral under atheism another touts that they wouldnt live their life differently if they were atheist so they arent missing anything. Hmmmmmm...very interesting indeed. can i get an amen here? Lol, hilarious. What has always troubled me is how many self professed christians have never fully read the bible. Whats more frightening is the ones who have that dont question some of the insanity. Ive only scraped the surface myself and will continue to study but starting at the start...why arent more people troubled by some of these stories?! Genesis 19:30-38 the tale of Lots daughters who got their father drunk so they could become impregnated by him. Really? Justifiably, of course, they did this because there was no man to lay with them as is the custom all over earth. This should not be shocking because just prior to that Genesis 19 1-8 Lot offers his virginal daughters up for sex to disuade the angry townsfolk from raping the visiting angels who have sheltered in his home. Oh, then that crazy Judah sleeps with his sons wife whom he mistook as a street prostitute. Before he realizes it was his daughter in law that he patronized he learns that Tamar is a prostitute who is now pregnant from her escapades, he cries out for her to be burned to death. That is until he realizes he himself is the father or Tamars child. Oops...well nevermind that. Genesis 38:6-25 I could go on and on and with determination I will get thru this trollop beginning to end and woe be the jaunty fundamentalist who seeks to debate my moral substance based on religion. Bring it! Furthermore, plenty of the story just doesnt make sense. How could we be created in Gods likeness and be so inherently evil?Why do we believe we had to be created yet the almighty just IS? How is it ok to cruelly mistreat the animals we eat? Oh, right, I forgot, because god said they are ours to be ruled over. How silly of me! Of course, animals are nothing more than property, at our disposal. They dont have feelings. Only unenlightened human arogance would believe that we are so special that we are above all the laws of nature and balance. Only human ego would believe that it is our godly duty to fill the earth with our progeny, destroying everything in our paths. In a modern world where it is clear that we have reigned ourselves (pun intended) into a corner, completely depleting the earth of everything we need to survive, many still believe this is the path we are meant to take. We have to eat two apples today to get the nutrition of one apple just 20 years ago. A clear sign that we are in real trouble as a species. But dont worry folks! God has a plan to get us out of this mess. As we approach the certainty that we have overpopulated the planet to the point of certain disaster, take comfort that the rapture is near at hand. Keep faith that our rescue must be just around the corner. Yes, lets hope so because the alternative in another 500 years is looking pretty grim. Never in history has one species ruled so supremely that it has elimiated itself. Natural predators in the wild destroy their young to prevent just such suffering in the long run. The planet itself has a peculiar way of keeping the checks and balances. But of course we must be special, somehow above the obvious laws of nature. We are so smart...right? Ticket to mars, anyone? I would encourage everyone to devour as much knowledge as possible, research every possible theory or angle and use your head! This book is interesting, as well as many other view points. It doesnt take god to know what is wrong here! PS. For a reaonable fee I will be happy to rescue your beloved pets after the rapture.

It started out okay, sharing in the author's emotions and inner torment over his own questionings. My problem with the book was that not long after the author's revelation that the God of the Bible didn't exist anymore for him, the tone of the book changed somehow. Specifically, the author became rather boastful that he was no longer under the spell of the Bible and it seemed at times as if he was mocking those who still were. I, an agnostic, was even offended by his constant tauntings of believers. I just somehow believe that this topic could have been better approached without all the tauntings and without having to listen to the author toot his own horn over and over again in between.

Read "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris instead. Even his books can get offensive at times, but this one isn't too bad, and at least I could finish it.

Because I just ordered my third copy, I felt it was time for me to speak up and tell you why. First, you will need one copy as a source of evidence to which you will frequently refer. There will be miles and miles of underlining as you mark the pages of special interest to you.

You will need your second copy to lend to others. You will be enthusiastic about this book, and you will want to share its wisdom with family and friends. Be warned, however, that you will never get it back, because others will likewise want to share it, and the book will never be returned to you.

Finally, you will want a third copy to be in pristine condition on your bookshelf, since Dan Barker has created a volume which will only grow in its historical significance.

Others have spoken up here on the store to attest the quality of this magnificent book. If I may be original at all in my review, it is only to suggest that, sooner or later, you will be ordering additional copies. You might as well save yourself time and shipping by ordering them all at once. I recommend ordering three copies.

Thank you, Dan Barker, for this incredible book and for your years of admirable devotion and service to the freethought world. Your esteemed reputation is richly deserved.

David Mills
Author of "Atheist Universe"

this is a very good book on atheism,citing the reasons that led dan barker to become an atheist.the only flaw that can be found is that it is more of a personal confession,dealing with the emotions of the writer,than a strict philosophical assessment of the arguments supporting atheism.despite this,it is a highly recommended book,because it shows the inner struggle that someone has to go through when he realises that all that he believed was false.i do not agree with his conclusions about the merits of atheism,but i have to admit that he is to be congratulated for his persistence in the search for truth.

Dan Barker does a masterful job intelligently and articulately responding to the arguments of those who claim there is a god.

I highly endorse and enthusiastically recommend this book to everyone.

An excellent read in itself, but largely a reprint of Dan's previous book "Losing Faith in Faith" with perhaps twenty percent new material. If you have not read Dan before, have no qualms. So 5 stars for the book as it stands minus 1 star for no warning that this may be a case of deja-vu.

Overall, I enjoyed reading this book. He has a lot of insightful criticisms of Christianity. Sometimes, though, it would seem like he was just criticizing EVERYTHING to make a point - as though the MORE criticisms he has, the better the weight of his total case. I'd rather see a smaller number of very convincing concerns NOT mixed in with a bunch of petty criticisms.

Examples:
Fair criticism: asking readers to come up with a coherent resurrection narrative. That is a fair challenge to Christianity.
Petty: Dismissing outright the beauty of the Beatitudes.

Fair criticism: presenting a verse in which God says that "I create good and evil" (Is 45:7)
Petty: Making God seem hypocritical for killing people when the 10 commandments say "do not kill". That's just a stupid argument.

etc.

I would have preferred a shorter book filled with more "true" problems (I admit there are problems with Christianity and Barker identifies several) and less silly/empty/baseless criticisms that wasted my time and mind to process.

Is this the best that atheists can do? Dan Barker’s reasoning is so seriously flawed that it lacks all credibility. That may explain why there are few true atheists.
There are many areas for criticism. I will focus on three.
First, his criticism of the Bible is so distorted that it goes beyond the borders of dishonesty. For example, he spends an inordinate amount of time analyzing the difference in the accounts of Paul’s conversion in chapters 9 and 22 of Acts. He has to begin with the assumption that Luke was such a fool that he didn’t even notice that there was a difference between the two accounts. Unlikely. It seems more reasonable that Luke knew what he was doing and that he had a reason for reporting the event as he did. That we don’t know the reason doesn’t mean there is no reason. It would seem reasonable, for example, to think that in chapter 9 Luke is reporting what happened from the perspective of those who accompanied Paul, and in chapter 22 Luke is reporting what Paul said about the events.
He seems to think that it’s cute to take Bible verses out of context so that they mean something ridiculous. For example, he quotes Psalms 137:9 more than once with the claim that God said that people should be happy to dash children against the rocks. Yet, anyone who reads the whole psalm can’t help but see that it is a cry of anguish from the Israelites who are in exile and that it is their desire for revenge, not God’s command, that is being expressed there.
Second, his only standard for knowledge is reason. This has two insurmountable problems. First, most people do not depend only on reason for their knowledge or their decisions. One wonders, for example, what his reasoning process was to decide to marry his wife. Are we expected to believe that it was a purely rational decision? For most of us, love is not quite rational. Second, any use of reason begins with a set of assumptions, and those assumptions are not verifiable by reason. People may choose different beginning assumptions, and in that case their reason will lead to different conclusions.
Third, he claims that people can be “good without God”. His alternative is a humanistic morality based on “nature”. But why humanism? Isn’t that speciesist? Why should humans have priority over other living beings? And what “nature”. A kind humanism has less support in evolutionary theory that a survival-of-the-fittest/winner-take-all ethic. Why shouldn’t each person pursue his own self-interest? That fits evolutionary theory far better than a concern for the well-being of all humans.
One other thing: his writing betrays an underlying arrogance that is reflected in his mocking disrespect for people of faith. That arrogance will take him down a path that has been followed wherever atheism has become the dominant ideology: the Soviet Empire, Cambodia, China, and North Korea. The path ends with millions of people slaughtered in the name of their ideology.

This book is boring, has almost nothing new to offer except for a lot of wordy nit-picking. A comparison of discrepancies in the gospels was nicely presented. Because of that, I would give this book one star. Overall, the book was a waste of time and money. This from a fellow non-believer.

The premise of this book is that if you reject militant christianity, then you should follow in the author's footsteps and become a militant atheist. As such, this is a classical example of the false dichotomy fallacy. Why is the choice one between militant christianity and militant atheism? Yes, the author went from one to the other (the only thing we can be sure of is that he is militant). But why does one need embrace atheism (much less his brand of militant atheism) if one rejects the dogmas of militant christianity? This book also illustrates the strawman fallacy. Fundamentalist christianity is an easy, convenient target to tear down. Aren't there any other forms of belief in God? So the premise of this book is a flawed one, to say the least. For what is worth, how about the following alternative views (which the "new atheists" seem to ignore or feign to): God is greater than anything humans can grasp with the faculty of reason; theological speculations are only a rough and distorted human view of the holy (as St. Thomas Aquinas himself, the greatest theologian in history, conceded after a mystical experience near the end of his life, his theological work was all "straw"); God is not an empirical concept. Only the heart, the existential sense, can achieve a degree of comprehension of God.

This is a masterful book that powerfully refutes the bible using logic and reason. Powerfully written, this book should stand in the way in many of those Christian missionaries who preach the bible as an infallible book at face value.
What is also great about this book is that it uses intelligence and common sense as opposed to emotions.
This book serves as a big wake-up call to many Christians who never seriously questioned their faiths.

Dan Barker has the apparent talent in writing with an entertaining, lucid, live, and humorous way. He also has gathered a wealth of knowledge on the subjects of preaching, the bible, and Christianity and became an enthusiastic Evangelical Christian at an early age. Insomuch he became an Evangelical preacher as well as a Christian songwriter for many years. It wasn't until a later age where Dan approached his Christian beliefs by reason and thought, and thus cost him his faith altogether. It's worthy here to note that Dan is part of the "Prometheus society" which requires an extremely high IQ entrance.

With depth and clarity this book sheds light on the ignored side of Christianity that many people who adhere to this faith seem to have no real knowledge about. In this thought provoking book, you'll end up realizing that there is no real reason to believe that Christianity is greater than say, Buddhism.
Dan tells his amazing story in a very interesting and an easy to read way. He explains the various conflicts in Christian doctrines, the fallacies in Christian reasoning ( e.g. resurrection, atonement, ... etc), and the various inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible, as well as the morality behind many of its teachings. This book is a powerful evidence that many of the Christian Preachers today preach at face value.

I was a bit disappointed with this book. I felt taken by the title. I thought it was about Dan Barker's story from preacher to atheist. Although he does tell us about his journey, it only accounts for about 20% of the book. The rest falls under philosophy, rhetoric, and debunking the bible, which is fine if I wanted a book of that nature. I found most of the book boring, probably because I was looking for a good non-fiction story (which is what the title suggested it would be). [...].

Having read Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion" (basically a long, bad-tempered rant from an outsider looking in), I turned to this book (foreword by Professor Dawkins) with some interest. After all, the author was once very much an insider, not only a committed Christian, but also a pastor and a talented Christian musician and composer to boot. I admire the tremendous courage it must have taken to "come out" so forthrightly in the modern USA, where religion (or at least religiosity) seems to be expected and even demanded - it cost him many friends and his marriage.

The book is both Mr. Barker's own story and a defence of atheism (really more an offensive against Christianity). Being a former Christian, he can hold Christianity's feet to the flames better than can Prof. Dawkins. And he does it well and thoroughly, if not altogether accurately - it seems to this non-theologian that, in his apparent eagerness to throw mud, Mr. Barker makes many generalisations and assertions that are questionable and even wrong. Doth the gentleman protest too much? Is he trying to make amends for what he now sees as past errors or whistling (too) loudly in the dark? There's nobody more fiercely anti-tobacco than a reformed smoker.

What interested me especially was Mr. Barker's loss of faith, as faith, famously defined in Hebrews 11 as "being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see" is ultimately what Christianity is all about. As Mr. Barker simply puts it, "I lost faith in faith", when faith was all that was left. So, what happened? Wasn't Mr. Barker's faith strong enough? Or not there in the first place? Or in everyone with a button marked "faith" that something (or Someone) has pressed, is there also an "off" button? I'd hoped for greater insight into something that can be so easily rejected by some while others are prepared to die for it. Perhaps that can only come from someone who didn't experience such a complete change of polarity.

The last chapters are almost embarrassing, a sort of atheist group-hug (you can imagine them all snuggling up and singing John Lennon's "Imagine"). He lists many indisputably fine people who were/are atheists, but manages to forget Josef Stalin (perhaps we can put down his bad behaviour to that time in a religious seminary).

It's a pity about the frequently strident tone and the frequent simplifications and errors, because this really is a book worth reading by both Christians and non-Christians alike. The tone is perhaps understandable in the context of the USA, given the blindness, arrogance and downright malevolence of the Christian right (all fine Christian qualities...). Perhaps Mr. Barker, knowing that (as per Prof. Dawkins's book) no die-hard Evangelical will be convinced by it (or even read it), he might as well hang for a sheep as a lamb, and so he comes out swinging. Nevertheless, the book deserves serious consideration, because it puts forth serious questions that merit serious answers and not the usual evasive action. After all, it was no less an authority than St. Paul who admonished the believers in Thessalonica, "Test all things, hold on to the good".

Ever notice that Atheists never stick to the scientific facts regarding God and religion? I get their claim—faith is not science based on the scientific method used today to describe the natural world. No dispute there. But since the Atheist claims to be rational, truthful, and scientific because of the evidence, I wonder why Barker (and others) spend so much time with intangible arguments and mere opinions? Just show me the facts. Of course, if they had any facts, they would be writing much shorter works. Barker casually mentions he is a “determinist,” a person who believes “free will” is an illusion. Then why spend so much time in his book telling me how he agonized over his decision to leave his Christian faith? I get the appeal of determinism; if a person is physiological structured by physical and chemical actions and reactions to be an alcoholic, a drug abuser, a pedophile, an adulterer, a murderer (add more as desired), then that person cannot be judged for his or her actions; after all, that person cannot help but follow his or her nature. By the way, what is Atheism? “Well, it is a belief or philosophy that claims…” No. Let me be more precise: how massive is your Atheism? What is its volume? How dense is it? How long, wide, and tall is it? What color is it? Of what is it composed? Ask that of anything “real” as the Atheist defines “real” and science can provide an answer (rocks, plants, animals, and some man-made fabrications), but science cannot provide a tangible answer to what is Atheism? We should expect more, but all we get is some nonsense about how the brain (through chemical and physical reactions) creates an illusionary mind that then creates the abstract concept of Atheism. Of course, we’re now twice removed from the scientifically real—and yet here we are talking about Atheism, which by the Atheist’s vaunted science, does not exist. Barker discusses ethical/moral relativism—the idea (Oops! Unreal) that ethical decisions are situational; then he proceeds to “show” how the Bible contradicts itself by quoting different passages without honestly considering the situation and the intent behind the passages. Barker is either ignorant (more so than he should be as a former believer) or intellectually dishonest. Hmm, I’m thinking dishonest. Barker rails against God the Tyrant because God expects his followers to submit to Him. Barker, the enlightened humanist, does this as if he never submits to anything in his life, and then proceeds to encourage his readers to submit to his ideology (why else write the book?). So here’s aquestion for you “freethinking” supporters of Barker: How are you a freethinker if you’re submitting your will to his? Barker claims he is not disappointed in God, and yet his pages clearly indicate that he is: I didn’t make money with my career in Christianity because I always believed Jesus was coming soon (a paraphrase). So it’s God’s fault that he (Barker) didn’t have the intelligence and wisdom to provide for his own family? Barker was a dupe in his religious practices, and he is dupe in his Atheistic practices: he has convinced himself that he’s on the right path. Any critical reader of his book will realize almost immediately that he is a fraud.

Emotionally charged, not well reasoned, self-contradictory and dishonest propaganda for the so-called new atheism. It reads so much like old atheism. Has some interesting points about fundamentalist faith and Mr. Barker's American evangelical protestant Christian experience, but leaves a lot more questions unanswered that decided atheism claims to but cannot resolve in much the same way fundamentalism fails, and not in a way that honest theism and agnosticism does not nor can claim to resolve. Agnosticism is doubt and faith has a shadow of a doubt, even a huge shadow. But both atheism and fundamentalist theism claim to have no doubts. This is merely my observation of the evidences, so don't believe me. Read it for yourself. Or don't. It's simply not as surprising or revolutionary as the claims promoting it with all the hype and accolades. As an autobiography of a man's angst in the cosmos, it is believable, even understandable; as another book in the typically mediocre attempt to evangelize for atheism, it is disappointing.

Einstein was far more intellectually and scientifically honest, humbled by the vastness and complexity of the apparent silent cosmos, making a clear distinction between atheism and his agnosticism and tentative theism:

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Contradictions taken out of context. God is a God of peace, of love, of forgiveness. He is also a God of war, of vengeance, and of judgment. God does not hide these attributes from us. Read the Bible book "Romans" describing the nature of man, the nature of God. God has displayed Himself in all His creation and even now science is coming to understand that there must be intelligence behind all living things. Discoveries about space, the universe, point to intelligent design. Just because a person was once a preacher, it does not make him an authority on atheism or Christianity. Just because I am a Christian does not mean I am not a free thinker. The Bible says to make sure of all thing, hold fast to what is true. Christ is true. Christ is the way, the truth, and the light. Test it yourself, seek Him yourself. Dan Barker, your life is not yet through. Even though you doubt what once you held, you may doubt what you now think you have.

I gave this book two stars because it is more readable by people who are still Christians because it is friendlier towards them. But, as another reviewer states, the book is mixed in it's content and flavor. It starts really quite friendly, as it describes the author's childhood and adult life as a very active and faithful minister. The next chapter describes 'the fall' as Baxter puts it, and chapter three describes reactions by friends and family to the news of his change. The whole book is more friendly than Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, and others, but his 'logic and reason' for the change is just as nonsensical as every other atheist I've read. There's no way for me to describe everything here, but here are three examples of what he considers to be logical or scientific reasons for his atheism.

1) He claims that God "cannot" exist because he would need to exist within or literally be an unobserved or unobservable aspect of the universe (something larger than the universe and/or necessarily existing outside of time and the 'natural' universe, etc). Of course, that assumes many things, one of which is that he understands the difference between natural and supernatural (if there is one) and that he knows all dimensions and aspects of nature (subquantum (tiny) or very large aspects of the universe that have/produce physical things or processes beyond what we know so far or even beyond what we can know ever know.) This point is not very clear (if you're confused), and is not supported or upheld by any science. It is, in fact, only upheld by the 'lack' of science (which is virtually the same as the 'God of the gaps' argument often used against Christians.)

2) He says that the fact that Jesus never talked about Paul supports his view that the Bible can't be trusted because Jesus would obviously talk about his most important supporter. Just to be quick here, Jesus never talked about any of his future evangelists - at least specifically. The key word here is 'future'; why would Jesus talk about someone who did not believe in him at the time (remember the conversion on the road to Damascus)? This is a 100% nonsensical and desperate argument only seen as valid by people who don't know their Bible or can't think straight.

3) This is a very general problem with many of his 'reasons', but he fails to see how he violates his own 'rules' of logic, reason, and science - while attempting to avoid emotional or philosophical 'mistakes' at all costs. He claims to 'know' more than he, or anyone, actually does (about nature or science in general - such as described above). He makes the same logical errors he accuses Christians of making. (These two are obvious in my first point). He apparently fails to see how his emotions have factored into his decisions. As an example, his description of his life as a minister clearly shows he wasn't happy and was doing it solely because he felt he had an "obligation" to live like that as a Christian. It doesn't take a psychologist to see why his transformation was clearly not entirely intellectual, as he claims. Finally, he says he has abandoned all ways of knowing about God and religion except for the logic and reason of science and experience. Needless to say, that is entirely contradictory. He states that unless he has a personal experience of God (miracle, prayer answered, vision, etc.), there is no God (which seems to derive from his frustration from the lack of interaction between him and God). Well, not only is this an outright logical error, it completely and automatically destroys his other arguments for God's non-existence. Based on this reasoning, he can't trust any scientific claim, which is what the majority of his reasons are based on.

If you're looking for a book that provides accurate, precise, solid, scientific, logical 'proofs' that God does not exist, this book will be a disappointment (as they all are!). But, he doesn't call anyone evil or stupid, which is a step in the right direction.

What makes Dan Barker think that all Christians are Fundamentalists? He seems to be aiming his book at what he calls Christian "Fundamentalists". Is that what he thinks of Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, St. Peter and the twelve Apostles? St. Augustine? St. Thomas Aquinas? His book is really a long, long, long, long, long diatribe, with arguments that any first year theologian could refute. Methinks there is something more behind this wholesale rejection of the God of the Bible and he has swallowed the atheist line, hook, line and sinker.

The worst and most illogical chapter is "What's Wrong with Christianity?", which is as infantile as it is ridiculous and he simply repeats the standard atheist doctrine almost verbatim. He dismisses almost 4,000 years of Judaism and Christianity. He dismisses all arguments against his positions as ad hominum attacks and he does not seem to realize that his arguments are fashioned on what seem to be the bad experiences of religious people. All I can say about that is: all of them can't be that bad.

His book is a sterile denial of God's action upon human history, which is at the heart of what he calls his "conversion" to atheism. It seems more emotional than rational and he goes to great length to drain out all the goodness and truth of Christian and Biblical morality. And that may well be where his "Godless" conclusions come from - or why give the book that title? That is the usual reason for a man to reject the Christian Faith - exaggerating its "evils". Commandments are about "hard" things and some people reject them for the obvious reason that they are hard.

His book protests too much. There can't possibly be that much wrong with Christianity, Judaism or the God of the Bible, and he is just a little too smug in his "Apologia Pro Vita Sua". Even Newman limited his Apologia to 216 pages: Dan Barker takes 356 pages, mostly it appears to convince himself that his positions are reasonable, defensible and right on target.

"The last temptation is the greatest treason, to do the right thing for the wrong reason" - quotes Thomas Becket in T.S. Eliot's "Murder in the Cathedral". Dan Barker's "Godless" is a rather long-winded, sterile and totally unconvincing account of his leap into Atheism and I think he will find a bigger bag of worms in the Atheism of Richard Dawkins than he finds in the Christians he so roundly condemns. His reasons are simply not convincing and he is raking over old arguments that have been refuted hundreds of times by people more skilled than myself in recognizing the holes in his arguments.

He has backed himself into an ideological corner that is more demanding and brutal and unforgiving than any tenet of Christianity, as he will find out as he begins to see the flaws in his arguments and the falsity of some of his accusations. He looks at the sinners and not at the saints, and he is content, as most atheists, of conjuring up straw men that he then proceeds to demolish , a trick as old as Simon Magus and Julian the Apostate.

His "Godless" is really an exercise in futility and a long, drawn out diatribe, and the repetition ad absurdum of facts and figures and fictions about Christianity, as if they were copied from a Handbook for New Atheistsl, before becoming a card-carrying member of Atheists International, the price that has to be paid to be admitted to that august assemply.

Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska

It is mostly just an opinionated book about why a pastor turned to atheism. One thing that this book does not represent is the broad spectrum of the Protestant faith. Barker was part of the charismatic church, one that many evangelical Christians would say is one ofthe most damaging movements to the Church today. Christianity isn't a feeling, although at times can be emotional. Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ, Barker didn't seem to have this.

Dan Barker's narcissitic attempt to support his reasons for embracing atheism were sloppy and lacked substance. The entire first half of the book reads like a high school diary of his life as a preacher. No I am NOT a believer btw. I would simply like to have seen an intelligent set of arguments that led to rejection of a biblical god. One need look no further than the Judeo Christian bible to see that humankind has failed to paint a loving image of god, let alone an all powerful one. But the arguments must be made using the text....the bible. Not antecdotal conversations with persons who were angry at his "conversion".
Even in the second half of the book, he briefly touches on the contradictory nature of god. He does not elaborate. That would have caught my attention.
Having completed my Masters Degree in Theology from a well known Seminary, I feel equipped to outline for others, my change in belief but less from a personal account and more from a substantial argument for rejecting the biblical god.
Dan Barker had us wade through endless pages of his history as a musician, a minister, a computer technician and on and on and on. Not to mention his writing is sloppy and reads more like a high school diary than a scholarly work (which I had expected)
I am currently working on a book to address those ideas that Dan Barker's book lacked. In a year or so go to the store and type in Leta Goldberg. My working title is "Looking for God (or NOT) When Your Child Dies: A Theological Journey Through Religion

All I have to say of Mr. Barker is that he is a fool, as the BOOK says, "the fool said , NO GOD" if these so-called atheists which in reality there are none, as GOD has "put eternity is every person's heart", don't believe there is NO GOD, why spend your life in futility, as Niechtcke (sp) did and spent his last 11 years of his life in a mental state of confusion, from his futile attempt to disprove something that in reality can never be proved, because if there were or were it even remotely possible that there where NO GOD, one proves in reality that in reality there is in fact a GOD, by the way of the BIBLE, as these so-called atheists or agnostics, have in fact acknowledged in fact there is A GOD, by admitting there is NO GOD, Thesis=GOD verses anti-thesis=know GOD, so why even bother with the issue to start with, if there is in fact or reality NO GOD, than just go on living one's life with futility and chase after WHAT? "the pleasures of sin for a season" or "as in the days of NOAH, they were eating and drinking and being merry" my point is "live your life like as a fool, but as for me and my house " we will serve the LORD" and go to heaven!! Thesis=Heaven, anti-thesis= HELL. enough said for " the FOOL said..." Same same DARWIN!

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. 1 Corinthians 3:19. That also speaks of human logic, men find fault with the counsel of God, many say that faith is an abandonment of reason.
What can we say about man and his logic(his reasoning)? what can we say about those who walk in the Spirit and in Truth?
Well we can say that the natural man is earthbound and "in the flesh", his "spirit" cannot make the "transition" from the physical realm to the spiritual realm. He is not born again of the Spirit of God and neither can he be unless he is brought to repentance by the Spirit. In his natural state he is influence by his logic which is of the flesh(his sinful nature), his logic dictates that the Word of God is flawed, that it contradicts itself, that God is not justified in His Judgment or that He don't exist. So he is motivated by "unbelief" because his "logic" dictates it.
The natural man is only conscious of his logic.
1 Corinthians 2
1And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 4And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 6We speak wisdom, however, among them that are fullgrown: yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who are coming to nought: 7but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: 8which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory: 9but as it is written,
Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not,
And which entered not into the heart of man,
Whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him.
10But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God. 12But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God. 13Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words. 14Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.
Man in his natural state is not "conscious" of the Spirit of God, even though he has a "spirit" a "soul", his spirit is earthbound and in the "flesh"(his sinful nature). He cannot make the "transition' from the physical realm to the spiritual realm because he walks in the "flesh", but there is in the consciousness of man the observable work of God's creation as being His handiwork, but in knowing this the natural man "holds back" or "suppresses" the truth of it in his unrighteousness(Romans 4: 18,19,20)
What can we say about those who walk in the Spirit and in Truth?
Jesus said in John 15: 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me:
And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:6)
The Apostle Paul said in Galatians 1: 11,12
For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.
How does the Spirit bear witness of the Truth to our "spirit"?
How are we conscious of the Spirit of Truth?
Ephesians 2: 8,9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.(English Standard Version)
The Grace that abides in us, by which we're saved through faith is the assurance, the evidence of the Spirit of Truth. In our consciousness we witness the Grace of the Spirit of Truth.
In our conscience by the power of the Spirit we are convicted of sin, what we thought before in our natural state that wasn't sin is now revealed to us, we experience repentance, the assurance of pardoning sin, the quickening of the power of the Spirit(His transforming power).
Being born of God by His Spirit we are delivered from the guilt of sin, by pardoning and justifing grace. And we're very conscious of this in our spirit, our eyes are open, the darkness is vanquished(overpowered) by the Light.
And the logic of the natural man in his self proclaimed wisdom, who walks in the "flesh" falls to the ground(it fails and becomes nothing) and why is that? For the Spirit bears witness of the Truth to the spirit of man, the man who is born again by His Spirit, the natural man in his logic cannot not see it, for it can only be seen and experience by the man who is born again by God's Spirit. For God is Spirit and His Truth and Grace can only be seen and experience by the spirit of the man who is born again of His Spirit. His eyes are open and the darkness has been vanquished(overpowered) by the Light. The logic of the natural man in his self proclaimed wisdom is in darkness and in that darkness the devil speaks the lie of logic.
1 Corinthians 2
4And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
14Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. (American Standard Version 1901, the wording "spiritually judged" in other versions of the bible is "spiritually discerned")

The author persistently insists he is now governed by reason instead of faith, thinking himself particularly apt in logic, whose principles he continually cites. However, his reasoning appears invariably careless and, especially, fallacious.

The carelessness can briefly be illustrated by his definition of "truth" (p.119): "The degree to which a statement corresponds with reality and logic". Does a 5% degree of that correspondence make a statement true? Obviously not, lest one get away with partial truths.

Another example of carelessness, or perhaps logical naiveté or dishonesty, is the author's description of the traditional "cosmological argument" for the existence of God (p.130): "...since everything has a cause, there must be a first cause [God]..." Surprise, our bright author sees immediately that "...if EVERYTHING needs a cause, so does God"! His description of the argument is of course a ridiculous self-contradiction not the humblest thinker would come up with.

His treatment of arguments for God gets the author into more trouble, as when relating a debate with Dinesh D'Souza, by alleging the fallacy of equivocation (p.82): "D'Souza claimed that since there are laws of nature there must be a lawgiver...Most Philosophy 101 students know that there is a difference between prescriptive [man-made] laws and descriptive [natural] laws. D'Souza is comparing apples and oranges, hoping to confuse gullible believers [with] his slippery tactic."

Let me note that our author decries "ad hominem" arguments--ones attacking the opponent outside the subject matter--contending he would "never stoop to" them (p.249). Yet he stoops to them twice in the preceding paragraph with "hoping to confuse gullible believers" and "his slippery tactic". It just may be that D'Souza sincerely held he had a good argument.

And a reasonable argument he had. There is no difference between natural laws and man-made laws insofar as both need be heeded to avoid problems. People supplement natural laws with their own, and one can argue by analogy that the former also have a lawgiver, as is argued by analogy that like human design of functional artifacts, functional organisms also have a designer.

Author Barker carries his claim of equivocation there farther. He quotes another author as criticizing an example of "this dishonest trick" (ad hominem again), one allegedly using different meanings of "is": "It's not hard to equivocally move back and forth between these meanings of 'is' to arrive at quite dubious conclusions. For example, from 'God is love,' 'Love is blind,' and 'My father's brother [my uncle] is blind,' we might conclude, 'There is a God, and he is my uncle.'"

It is both authors who fail logically. The first two premises would by transitivity imply "God is blind" (it is "love" which is used equivocally); and with the third premise, "My uncle is blind", to conclude "God is my uncle" is to commit the fallacy of "undistributed middle", here saying that "Someone blind is my uncle" implies "Everyone blind [God] is my uncle". There is no equivocation of "is".

There is, however, a larger, dual, equivocation committed by our author. In answering (pp.354-6) the questions "What about hope? What about salvation?" he bypasses their most common purport, understandable as "hope of salvation" in the sense concerning an afterlife of fulfillment--salvation in somewhat the sense given by Webster's Unabridged as "the saving of a person's soul from eternal punishment and its admission into heavenly beatitude", if not so particular a sense.

Author Barker changes these senses of "hope" and "salvation" people have in mind, fitting them to pronouncements of atheism: "...those with a positive view of human nature--a true hope--will work for 'salvation' from within the human race, using the tools of reason and kindness."

His failings of reason were exemplified above, and reason fails equally in his discussions of kindness. Atheist activists assure us that atheists can be as kind as theists and more so, by being good "For Goodness Sake" (p.208). They can, but will they? "Be good, for goodness' sake!" (p.221) is equivalent to "Be good, so as to be good!"; it gives no justification. The question remains; what impels mankind to be moral under atheism? Author Barker admits (pp.215-216): "We have systems of law, enforcement, justice and defense", but concedes only that "a few of us are off to...the side of mental disease, with sociopaths and criminals". What about selfishness, as because of inapplicable laws?

Rather, he attributes selfishness to the religious, for the "prospect of reaping individual rewards or avoiding punishment [from God]" (p.220). Again, the Unabridged defines selfishness as "a concern for one's own welfare or advantage at the expense of or in disregard of others". What happened to the "pursuit of happiness" of the Declaration of Independence our author admires? We are endowed with sympathy, presumably by God, and being made happy by bringing happiness to others is by no means selfish.

Lastly a few words about evidence for a supreme being. Author Barker contends (p.87): "there is no evidence for a god" and "There would be no 'Does God Exist?' debates if the question were one of evidence. By now someone would have won the Nobel Prize..." The Nobel committee is hardly the source of final approval, particularly because of its biases, let alone the general incredulity in this respect. The author also (p.101) quotes the bible: "Faith is...the evidence of things not seen" and adds: "In other words, faith it the evidence of non-evidence". He may be reminded that quarks or the Big Bang are likewise not seen; science infers from effects. He also says (p.106), mouthing Darwin: "Living organisms are the result of the mindless, uncaring reality of natural selection..."

No, natural selection is not the, "uncaring", reality regarding living organisms. Their reality is caring, disclosed in their universal activity of self-preservation. This caring activity is the "effect" of an unseen force, about which more may be inferred. May I recommend my own book for further inquiry?

Yikes! Shockingly superficial with extremely poor logic and wistful arguments. Chock full of lame, disrespectful, and off-putting snark. If atheists can not do better than to trot out this shill to get taken to the woodshed in debates and in print, than I don't understand why there are any atheists. As a Christian, I like to read opposing viewpoints to strengthen my arguments and faith. This book was so rudimentary and weak that it serves no point for non-atheists and atheists alike. I truly don't understand why this book is so well reviewed. Perhaps the most egregious aspect of this embarrassment is that Barker presents himself as somewhat of a science expert because he reads atheist "science" propaganda in his spare time. Additionally, his critique of Jesus' teachings as being poor moral guides may as well have been written by a grade schooler.

When did the voting take place? Honestly, neither myself nor any of the other atheists I am acquainted with were ever notified there even WAS a contest to decide who the "Leading Atheists" were.

This guy and his fellow "preacher" in recovery John Loftus (who can be found flogging his own books at his glowing review of this book) are not anything but "preachers" who have decided to work the rubes on the other side of the street. Same techniques... same motive. The burning desire to have a flock to lead.

Being a shameless drunk for 20 years, offering FREE DRINKS to everyone you meet and telling them they are crazy if they don't drink as much as they can (like you) until you finally reach the point that... even the smell of alcohol makes you vomit does not [I repeat] DOES NOT make you "One of America's Leading" Non-Drinkers! It makes you an X-Drunk who stopped drinking because you couldn't swallow another drop.

So what's an X-Drunk to do? No more bars to hang out in all day. No more fellow drunks to sing and hang out with. I KNOW! Write a book (or books) on how you saw the light and claim to be THE expert on ridding the world of alcoholics. "Claim" that YOU are an expert on sobriety because you were a drunk most of your life.

While this "Leading Atheist" was swallowing every bit of religious balderdash the moment it was put on his plate MILLIONS of other people were saying to themselves... "These people MUST be kidding (or dissociated from reality)" Fool me ONCE, shame on you. Fool me OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR DECADES AND ENLIST ME INTO FOOLING OTHER PEOPLE..... And THEN I get to be a leading expert on "Giving good advice"? NOT Bloody likely!

Same preacher... new flock. An insult to all actively investigating the ubiquitousness of paranormal beliefs.

Then how come almost no one has heard of him prior to this? and I don't get it, how can one be a leading non-believer? can one be a leading non-football player?

Unless of course, he's just trying to make a cheap copy of Antony Flew's book "there is a god".

I agree with the user above who said that this preacher is just working the idiots on the other side of the street, but little do they realize that their new preacher is just swindling them too.

can somebody say "cha-ching" for book sales?

Seven years ago I was a staunch atheist. Then something miraculous happened in my life to make me believe in God. I'm OK with this book. Why? Because it separates the believers from the non-believers. Everyone is entitled to say what is on their mind, as everyone is entitled to believe in what they want. But, for all those non-believers go to youtube and type in Heidi Baker. I would love for Dan to meet Heidi Baker. Heidi has been doing God's work for years. She has started over a thousand orphans. Spend one hour with Heidi and you'll believe.

The book does not stand up to the hype. Neither does the authors statments such as there being contradictions in the Bible.
If one TRULY seeks to find answers they are there. Rather than wasting your time on this book I recommend the Bible and Darwin on Trial.

Compare Acts 9:7 with Acts 22:9. When YOU find these two references you will find Acts 9:7 says the men with Paul heard the voice of Christ. Acts 22:9 says they heard not the voice. So there, some would suppose, is an unanswerable, direct contradiction! "It cannot possibly be answered!" Oh!? It is really simple to answer! Would one think Luke would be so foolish as to contradict himself in such short a space? The word heard is the Greek word akouo. Like most words, it has an area of meaning, not one finite meaning. It can mean hear with the ear, or it can mean "to understand." In the Greek, the verb is used differently in chapter 9 than in chapter 22. The first indicates that they heard the sound, but the way it is used in the second indicates that they did not understand the meaning. (Vine, Vol. IV., p.204) So the Simple English Bible translates Acts 9:7: "The men heard (akouo) the voice. but saw no one." It translates Acts 22:9: "The men who were with me did not understand (akouo) the voice, but they saw the light." Again, there is no contradiction.

As far as the other so called contradictions in the Bible can be explained when looking at the orginal text as done above. To me this was a man looking for an excuse to not believe in a God, a heaven and a hell and like most, wanted to live their life how they please...

Roamans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.