I. M. ProbulosBesprekingen

I always thoughts I was an agnostic, it appears the older I get the more I am an atheist. What amused and enlightened me about these quotes is the comparison, that came to my mind, to the current political upheaval in the USA. The outright lies and fabrications and fantasies and fake news and twisting of truth by Republicans who claim to be Christians. It suddenly struck me that it is easy for those 'Christians' to stand up and spout fantastic versions of reality and arguments against truth because they have spent their lives believing in something unreal in the real world and yet the torrent of words attributing reality to that fantasy has been incredible. If, as an atheist, I view Christian's insisting that their sky-god needs me to worship and obey, or else, as either liars, or fantasists with only a distant relationship with truth, science, and reality, then compare what is happening in politics ...maybe some are true believers in the fantasy but others are definitely liars out for the main chance...and yet in a lot of cases they are one and the same person....maybe belief in religion makes it easier to believe in Donald Trump despite the reality right before their eyes and ears. In Donald's case, it is actual stuff they are ignoring, in the case of God, it is fantasy stuff they care conjuring. How much difference is there between the two. The picture of all the fundamentalist Christians laying hands on Trump, whose head is bowed, and praying in the Oval office was sickening in the extreme. Time for churches to start paying taxes. If they are going to get into politics, they have to pay their way like the rest of us. Their tax free status was predicated on their staying out of politics..separation of church and state...they are breaking that covenant...CHEATING IN FACT.

Lots of repetition and some good information but strangely laid out.

Lots of repetition and some good information but strangely laid out.

365 Additional Quotations for Atheists, Agnostics, and Secular Humanists (Quote Books) by I. M. Probulos has a great collection of secular quotes that are quite clever and various source of people. I enjoyed them.

This book consists of two parts, the book proper and a somewhat jumbled appendix of related ideas. Criticized for not having his books better organized, the author said that he cannot afford to put more work into books that he sells so cheaply. This one, despite its problems, is well worth the cost.

There is one serious problem, I could not get the tables to be readable, either on my iPhone or my Mac. Perhaps on an actual Kindle, this works better. It does not appear to be available as a book. They are not really necessary to the argument.

Probulos makes an interesting and unusual argument here: how can a supposedly merciful God condemn 75 billion (as of 2014) members of his supposedly favorite creation to eternal torment in Hell? Particularly since, being omniscient, he knew in advance what would happen. The author refers to the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God as the O-O-O-God. Probulos argues that it all comes down to probabilities: being damned for being born in the wrong place, or before Jesus was born, or to people who believed the wrong things. Most people, about 68% picked the wrong parents. God is a bungler, or indifferent to (or enjoys?) human suffering.

The pious answer of course, is free will. Probulos doubts that it is really a free decision. What about the unevangelized? The devout argue that if they sincerely wanted to know God, he would reveal himself. But most of these are people who practice the faith they were raised in, so Probulos doubts that their sincerity can be seriously questioned. Most of them are decent, hardworking people – why do they deserved Hell? Moreover, he questions the actual existence of free will, given that we are products of our genetics, upbringing, social environment, etc. I could give him another reason to question free will based on my religious training. We were taught that no human being is capable of living without sin because of the effects of Original Sin, hence the Virgin Mary's Immaculate Conception in Catholic doctrine. This strikes me as very unfair, and if baptism wipes away Original Sin, implausible. Apparently, baptism only partially wipes away Original Sin.

I do wish to make one caveat on behalf of my former co-religionists, and by logical extension, on behalf of atheists and agnostics. Probulos goes off on a tangent and argues that Protestants, believing in salvation by faith, don't have to do good works, while Catholics and Mormons do. In the first place, Calvinism's belief in predestination is not shared by all Protestants. Faith is supposed to put the believer in a state of grace that inspires good works; Luther said that a person who is not constantly doing good works obviously isn't saved. Protestants also build hospitals, help the poor, fight for justice; the sect I was raised in particularly focused on education. But if Probulos believes that about Protestants, one would logically conclude that he agrees with theists who argue that atheists/agnostics are amoral and don't do good work because they aren't assuming any afterlife. What was Probulos thinking? He's making a pretty good argument against himself here -- does he ever do good works? Probulos is quoting a canard like the argument that Catholics can get away with murder because all they have to do is confess, or Jews can get away with murder because they don't believe in an afterlife, etc., etc. I imagine that most religions have a little stock of libels and slanders about their rivals. Maybe I should reduce the number of stars. . .

A very interesting, and in the main book, well argued position, even without the tables. The appendix, if not as effective, is still interesting.

In some ways, one might complain that this straightforward, but tongue-in-cheek story is a little dull. Adam and Eve never, ever eat of the Tree of Knowledge, they worship God with complete sincerity and trust. The weather is always perfect, childbirth is a snap, and they and all the animals are vegans. Eve thinks that Adam might have chosen simpler names than archaeopteryx or velocirapter, but that's about the extent of their disagreements.

But there is a snake in the garden, one who has foreknowledge of the future if they eat the apple. One that gets very frustrated as he tries to talk Adam and Eve into eating the forbidden fruit. Adam and Eve find the snake very annoying, and ask God to remove him, but for some reason the deity never gets around to it.

Meanwhile, the snake engages Adam in a series of conversation of what sort of god he would be, if he had created ants and they were disobedient . . .½