"It is not religion that makes men fanatics; it is the power of the human desire for justice, so often partisan and perverted. That fanatical desire can be found in both religion and atheism. In the contest between religion and atheism, the strength of religion is to recognize two apparently contrary forces in the human soul: the power of injustice and the power, nonetheless, of our desire for justice. The stubborn existence of injustice reminds us that man is not God, while the demand for justice reminds us that we wish for the divine. Religion tries to join these two forces together."

Runs through the evolutionist scientists' role in the New Atheism.

"Atheists may have many other virtues, but on one of the least controversial and most objective measures of moral behavior—giving time, money, and blood to help strangers in need—religious people appear to be morally superior to secular folk. "

Atheism is in trouble. You can tell because its most eloquent spokesmen are receiving icily critical reviews in the very mainstream press that Christians often dismiss for liberal bias.

Anti-faith proselytising is a growth industry. But its increasingly hysterical flag-bearers are heading for a spectacular failure.

"Christians should respond in three ways. First, we must always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15) and do it with gentleness and reverence. Second, we should trust in the power of the Gospel: 'I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is the power of God for all those who believe' (Romans 1:16). Third, we should live godly lives before the world so that we may (by our good behavior) silence the ignorant talk of foolish men (1 Peter 2:15)."

"‘Lazy’ is probably the best word to describe The God Delusion. It is under-researched, under-argued and appears to have been dashed off the cuff. Few scholarly references are given; most of the information comes from the internet and has not been properly verified; page references are lacking; points are not followed up; no effort is made to understand counterarguments, and more thought is required to patch up the propositions presented."

"I have not covered all the points Dawkins makes in a book of 300 pages. For example, he has chapters on spiderwebs, sea shells and segmentation. But there is plenty of information on two of his case studies—flight and sight—plus some general principles, to show that the Apostle of Atheism has a long way to go to make a convincing case for his faith."

Criticizes Dawkins on four principal bases related to his understanding of religion.

"The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a 'delusion.'"

"One encounters in A Devil’s Chaplain at least three Dawkinses: there is Dawkins the Humanist, Dawkins the Reasoner, and Dawkins the Darwinist. Each sits on a different branch, sawing away at the branches on which the others sit. Dawkins the Humanist preaches, inveighs, denounces; he bristles with moral indignation. Dawkins the Darwinist tells him, however, that his humanism is speciesist vanity, his moral standards arbitrary, and his indignation empty. Dawkins the Humanist rebels, proclaiming himself (in human affairs) passionately anti-Darwinian. Dawkins the Reasoner joins the rebellion, declaring that our minds allow us to transcend our genetic inheritance. Dawkins the Darwinist answers with lethal effect that our brains 'were only designed to understand the mundane details of how to survive in the stone-age African savannah.'"

"In the new atheist mythology, whatever good religion does is accidental and all the harms done in its name are part of the package, but this seems very unlikely. Stalin proves that men don’t need religion to be evil (though at his most offensive Hitchens sounds like he blames the deaths of twenty-two million or so Orthodox Christians at the hands of atheism on Orthodoxy). In fact, the hardest thing is to motivate men and women to live for others and give their lives in service. Religion has done this millions of times and it is not accident that the religious are more charitable (in their giving) than non-theists."

Wilson's blog contains chapter by chapter responses to Hitchen's book, once you scroll through the first few entries.

Dinesh D'Souza debates Christopher Hitchens over whether "Christianity is the Problem." D'Souza smokes Hitchens. The image of Hitchens holding his booze, chorteling into his microphone, "Oh please" as D'Souza desribes Mother Theresa's love of Christ for the suffering was a great visual representation of what atheism has to offer--nothing.

"So before Hitchens claims, as he does in his subtitle, that Religion Poisons Everything, he might stop to consider that the only basis for a belief that all human life is both equal and of infinite value is the Bible that he treads on with such glee."

"Am I my brother’s reviewer? A word of explanation is needed here. Some of you may know that I have a brother, Christopher, who disagrees with me about almost everything.... "

"Theologian Douglas Wilson and atheist Christopher Hitchens, authors whose books are already part of a larger debate on whether religion is pernicious, agreed to discuss their views on whether Christianity itself has benefited the world. Below is their exchange, one in a series that will appear on our website over the course of this month."

"Hitchens, as a humanist, puts great faith in mankind’s potential for progress. Given the history of mankind he cites, and granting the weakness of man in religion, where does he get his confidence in mankind (atheism) without accountability to God and the eventual of man’s progress in the future? It’s not necessarily a fact that religion is the cause of mankind’s atrocities; it’s just as possible given the facts that man has corrupted religion."

"Harris' stolid--dare one say dogmatic?--failure to see anything in contemporary religion other than the exclusive, world-conquering fantasizing of monotheism at its worst keeps his book mired squarely in a painfully anachronistic atheist's bill of indictments, cribbed in most particulars from the heyday of Enlightenment skepticism."

This is Prager's opening email in an e-debate with Sam Harris.

The opening statement of Chris Hedges in a debate with Sam Harris. Links to the rest of the discussion are provided.

Holding offers a point-by-point response to Harris.

"The thrust of Harris's best-sellers is that with the world so crazed by religion, it's high time Americans stopped tolerating faith in the Rapture, the Resurrection and anything else not grounded in evidence. Only trouble is, our country's foremost promoter of "reason" is also supportive of ESP, reincarnation and other unscientific concepts. Not all of it is harmless yoga class hokum -- he's also a proponent of waterboarding and other forms of torture."

"To put the matter bluntly, no one could mistake it for a genuinely substantial argument who was not firmly intent on doing so before ever reading the book. Viewed impartially, Dennett’s project leads nowhere, and its diffuse and flimsy methods are altogether unequal to the task of capturing the complex, bewildering, endlessly diverse thing they are designed to subdue."

"Alister McGrath is quickly gaining fame as a prominent intellectual opposed to the resurgent atheism recently advanced by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. The latter of these atheists is a renowned philosopher of the mind and presently Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. Dennett has written several books, including Consciousness Explained and Breaking the Spell. Alister McGrath is presently Oxford University’s Professor of Historical Theology and resident of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford."

"Breaking the Spell fails to portray religion as a strictly natural phenomenon. Dennett’s theory relies heavily on hypothetical constructs known as memes, and consists largely of unsubstantiated speculation. Further, even if one grants that memes exist, Dennett fails to consider the possibility that some memes may be supernatural in origin (such as the "memes" some shamans receive during ecstatic experiences). Dennett does not provide a naturalistic interpretation of mystical experiences, which play a vital role in most religions. Finally, Dennett’s thesis does not explain historic Christianity as a natural phenomenon, because he does not propose a naturalistic theory that accounts for the apostles’ claim of Jesus’ resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:11)."

"In the end, his repudiation of religion is a repudiation of philosophy, which is also an affair of belief in belief. What this shallow and self-congratulatory book establishes most conclusively is that there are many spells that need to be broken."