even if there is GOD..NO David Mills, Richard Dawkin and others will never believe...
i just read-----Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism...waist of time and money..
nobody cant say 100% that there is NO god...
even--- Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater)said: "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design....ect
Anthony Flew was a big atheist who debate Christians....

Atheism has long been a misunderstood concept. Primarily, Christians, but other religions as well, have shaken their heads disapprovingly at Atheist because they just can't understand why a person wouldn't believe in their personal invisible friend. David Mills works to combat the faith-minded individual with facts. This book is a must for anyone interested in facts and reason. And for the Christians, it might give you an insight into why Atheists believe in themselves instead of theology.

One thing that is particularly admirable about the writer of this book, David Mills, is his ability and courage to take on such controversial topics as atheism and the existence of God. "Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism" is one book that is hard to imagine most individuals would even dream of attempting to have published, let alone writing, within a billion years. After all, to most individuals, the existence of God is virtually a proven fact and anyone who so much as doubts said existence can expect to be at the receiving end of some particularly harsh castigation, both socially and politically. This was especially true thousands of years ago during the Roman Empire when the concept of atheism was unheard of, and the act of disbelieving in God was not tolerated by both neither the political nor social masses. In fact, back in those times, it was requirement that all denizens attend church every day and the religious authorities also controlled the military. Even today, young children are often taught that if they are good in this world, then when they die, they will go to a place called Heaven and that if they are bad in this world, then when they die, they will go a place called Hell. They are also often taught about the Ten Commandments and the importance of obeying those.

In "Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism," the courageous writer, David Mills, tells readers everything that they might have wanted to know about atheism. He also sets out to address a plethora of questions about how the universe came to be, which draws from a variety of academic disciplines, such as science, philosophy, history, as well as many others. Through the employment of sound arguments, all of which are based on logic, rather than theory or speculation, Mills does a very good job of supporting the reasons for which he believes that God did not play any role in the creation of the universe, and it is good thing, because when writing a book like this, it is very important to support oneself with as many facts as possible. Otherwise, one is likely to set up oneself for embarrassment, ostracism, and/or social flogging as a large portion of the U.S. population does believe that God does exist and that God did create the universe. It is also good thing that the U.S. concept of "freedom of speech" still has some merit, especially when one considers the role that religion and Christianity have been playing in U.S. government even today.

Funny! Rowley keeps makings statements as if the author is grouping all Christians together using the less favorable ones as his messuring rod, but book is titled "Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism". Key word here is "Fundamentalism"! Thus if you are not a "Fundamentalist" Christian, then you are not represented therein!

The problem then is that religious people tend to read most books this way, and that includes their so-called "Holly" bible. Note: I didn't say all! :) I call it the "Ignoring Method", and this is the weapon of choice by most religious people.

Being that the literal definition of belief is: "something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief." We can see that the foundation of belief starts with a "huntch", and is not founded on fact. Thus belief equals Ignorance, because you don't know and have no facts to back your convictions! This is how the "Ignore Method" was created.. First you ignore the obvious (making you "Ignor-ant"), and then you talk in circles like an idiot.

Most people quote this bible without even knowing its history, thus never knowing that the bible is a book made up of many little books. And what was choosen to be placed within was decided upon by a group of mortal men, and absolut power corrupts absolutly. And this corruption of text if the very foundation of this book, so why are we even debating such nonsense to begin with?

I am not an athiest or a Christian, but I do have common sense! Its simple English grammer here.. "Fundamentalism" Now.. can we all just get along? LOL :)

The main virtue of this book is that it presents all of the arguments in favor of an atheist worldview in one place.

The two-star rating reflects the author's clearly disingenuous representation of his knowledge about Christianity. For example: (page 18) "Christianity, therefore, defines ethics in terms of an individual's religious beliefs (which affect no one else) rather than in terms of unselfish conduct toward others." As the author perfectly well knows, this is an absurd and unworthy representation of the Christian view of ethics: Christians take their lead on ethics from Jesus, who could not have described more clearly how we are to behave toward others.

A technique deployed extensively in the book is the use of terms such as "many Christian fundamentalists" and "politically active TV evangelists" not in the restricted sense in which they are relevant, but with the clear inference that the attitudes and behaviors of such minorities are representative of Christians as a whole. The most widely used such expression in the book, however, is "creationists" - a term I have never heard anyone claiming to represent their worldview, but which the author sets up as if it were the mainstream Christian position. Now I don't mean to deny that most Christians believe that God created the universe, but the author extrapolates this in exotic ways:
(page 86) "God is now portrayed as more passive in His supervision of Nature - often watching from the sidelines as Nature operates on Her own." (This describes the entirely non-Christian Deist position)
(page 70) "Creationists often claim that the laws of physics govern the behavior of the universe" - this is the exact opposite of Christians' belief that God governs the universe and that the "laws of physics" are just a human construct useful for describing natural phenomena.
(page 122) "Creationists, however, view scientific debate and disagreement as signs of weakness. Creationism therefore ridicules open-mindedness and scoffs at the free exchange of ideas so essential to a democratic society and to the scientific method itself." - Tell that to the likes of John Polkinghorne, Bill Craig and Roy Varghese, whose books honestly represent opposing views, using science correctly and in its proper context.

The most prevalent approach deployed by atheists (and Mills is no exception) is to use their perception of what God would or would not do in any given situation to argue that no such God exists. (Actually Mills goes one further and suggests how Jesus might better have used the special powers that Mills denies he had!) The problem of pain is perhaps the lowest-hanging fruit for such an approach, and Mills uses it fully in support of his atheist stance. Truly, I understand the problem of reconciling the amount of evil on the world with the idea that there is an entirely good God presiding over us, but the mere fact that it is difficult to do so proves nothing. Mills seems to think that God should somehow intervene to prevent anything that could cause pain or suffering - perhaps even to render people incapable of acting in such a way. Isn't it remarkable that the genre of people (atheists) who more than any other feel that we should be responsible for our own actions are ready to invoke the argument that a good God would intervene at every possible opportunity to deny our free will. I do not pretend to be wise enough to discern God's purposes, but the solutions proposed by Mills (and others) for how God should really act (apart from being utterly arrogant) are self-evidently nonsense.

One of the most popular targets for atheists is what Mills devotes a chapter to under the title "The Myth of Hell". Apparently, Mills can see no possibility of Hell, though he does consider several ideas about why God might create Hell: Deterrence, Separation, and Rehabilitation. Now again, I intend no inference that I suppose to know what God's purpose might be, but it seems that Mills has missed the obvious possibility - which is that Hell is what those who reject God freely choose. After all, wouldn't the Christian idea of heaven, with everyone worshipping God, be "hell" for atheists - so wouldn't they naturally choose a place where materialism is all there is?

I would love to say that I respect the atheist worldview, but I simply do not. If there is no God, there is absolutely no basis on which we can differentiate between good and evil; no moral absolutes; none in fact of the things that atheists rely on to argue their position.