Skeptics Books

The idea of countless, and by countless I mean about 23, skeptics reading this book and lapping up every word as a cat does milk is quite the amusing scenario. After all, wouldn't a true skeptic disregard a book that contains very little more than one man's opinion? Wouldn't this skeptic already be doubtful and cynical of all the topics that this book addresses? True, the said skeptic may be interested in learning the facts behind these `widespread lies and rumors,' but sadly very little evidence has been included in this book.

Very little of this book is cross referenced. It is almost entirely the opinion of the author lightly salted with whatever facts they could dig up to support their opinion. Why, isn't that what the mystics, politicians, and everyone else does for that matter does? In order to truly be skeptic, you must first be skeptic of your own beliefs and opinions.

I did not delve into this book in order to discredit it, as does a rabid atheist to the Bible, instead, I was quite interested in what these people that supposedly only believe in things in which hard evidence can support actually believes. After all, we live in times of uncertainty; the internet has made it possibly for just about everyone to express their opinions, so it can be very difficult to know what to believe. Therefore, I thought that by reading up on what skeptic's believe I could start from there. It didn't work. The so-called Skeptic's Dictionary is just another left-leaning publication that seeks to disprove the status quo and replace it with secular humanism.

Take the Global Warming issue for example; I thought that by picking up this book I could learn more about this wide-spread hoax being spread by an ever growing government. Instead the entry is about the author's skepticism of Global Warming skeptics! The thought of that alone is mind boggling. The book even claims that they are `contrarians': people that only POSE as skeptics. Who decides this? Why the Skeptic's Dictionary, of course!

One thing I sort of give the book credit for is its stance on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Instead of pandering to the far left loons, the author instead is skeptical of them. This then brings up a whole host of questions. For example, is it more skeptical to be skeptical of the conspiracy theories, or the Bush Administration's official statements? Also, is it possible to be skeptical of both? This is the crux of so-called skepticism, it is impossible to be skeptical of everything without believing in something. Therefore, skepticism is almost always, if not always, selective in nature. This boils it down to the fact that one believes what one wants to believe and is skeptical of the rest. In that case, we are all selective skeptics.

Nowhere does this selective skeptical hypocrisy make itself more evident than when the book discusses religion and science. There is a selection on junk science, and it is quite amusing what you will find there. It should come as no surprise that no skeptical entries have been included for Global Warming, macro evolution, or mental illness. Instead make way for creation science, holocaust denial, and even the Myers Briggs personality tests. Wait a minute, holocaust denial? I do believe in the holocaust, but aren't those that deny the holocaust skeptics? The skeptic's dictionary is cannibalizing its audience!

Much of the book is simply a channel for the author to release his pent up anger on religion. Although, there is no entry on skepticism towards unproven theories such as macro-evolution, the author sure is skeptical about the idea of a God. Even the entry on God presents it not capitalized, as god, simply to mock any `uninformed theist' that may be reading the book. However, such topics as Mars moon face, Friday the 13th, and free will made the list. Yes, you read that correctly, the author of this book does not even believe there is free will. I suppose he had no choice but to write this book, haha!

The so-called skeptic's dictionary(not capitalized due to childish spite) even goes so far as to claim that because they found a private letter written by Einstein that compares God to a fairytale, that Einstein is officially an atheist now. The letter also seemed quite anti-Semitic, but the skeptics remain skeptical of this. I suppose these same skeptics now admit that Hitler was an atheist because he had written private letters expressing the same thoughts. I suppose we can all look forward to this entry in the Skeptic's Dictionary, Volume II. (But I remain skeptical. -Ed)

It is this selective skepticism that makes almost all skeptics nothing more than hypocrites. If one can be truly skeptic of everything and only believe in what there is hardcore evidence for, then I believe that is worthy of respect. I don't think it will be a very rewarding life for this individual, but this is how he chooses to live.

This review has gone on far longer than I originally thought necessary, but there is so much to touch on. In fact, I could probably debunk every single skeptical belief that is put forth in this book. But it all pretty much boils down to the fact that there is nothing skeptical at all about this book. This is simply the fundamental, yes fundamental, beliefs of one man as expressed entirely by himself. The author is in no way skeptical of anything he believes and therefore discredits himself by his own principle. Owned.

This is simply a book written by skeptics for skeptics. And the thought of anyone that calls themselves a skeptic mindlessly believing what they find in this book amuses me.

This review contains information gathered from both the book and the website.

An excellent factual dictionary of of human error and deception.Laced with mordant humor . A treasure.
James Willis

A lot of the information in this book is not necessarily based on facts or research, but merely the opinions of the authors.. The authors take an overly skeptical approach to many topics, and don't actually provide any evidence in their "debunking".. I would NOT recommend this book to those who value scholarship.

The main thing wrong with this book is that some of the sections are nothing more than uninformed personal opinion. There are some items that he is knowledgeable of, but this quality of his commentary is not consistent, and when he finds something he feels strongly against, he gives a rant that is no better -and in some cases a lot worse- than the ideas he is writing against. He writes like a university professor, which is to say that his style is quasi-polished and packed with arctypes of ideology, some of which are themselves pseudo-whatever. When those are right, then his arguments are correct; but when they are untrue or incorrect, he simply doesn't seem to notice that they are untrue or incorrect. For this reason the book is suspect overall. If there's something you know is true, maybe you will find reinforcement of that fact here; but if there is something that you are not sure about, this book is not the one to trust in finding out what the objective truth is.

I recently bought this book and was very impressed with how much information is packed into the book. It has a wide range of entries on many different topics, like aliens, intelligent design, psychic powers, etc. It also had many entries on topics I'd never heard of before like the Nazca lines and craniosacral therapy.

The book was laid out in very easy to read manner, and is a pleasant read. For being called a "dictionary" it sure has some thorough information on many of the topics it covers.

I agree with some reviewers who said that the author tells us his opinion about some of these subjects, but for the most part I thought he included relevant facts and sources for nearly every entry. Even on the subjects where the author seems to give his opinion on matters, I found myself agreeing with him, so I don't think his opinions are irrelevant. I'd recommend double checking with other sources to make sure what he says is legit, though, just to be sure his opinion isn't biased.

All in all, I'd highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn about many of the silly and unsubstantiated beliefs that people hold. It's good not only for research but for casual reading as well.

the author of this book came up with a pretty interesting plot idea, and some reasonably interesting science behind it, but he should have passed that idea on to an actual novelist. the writing is absolutely dreadful. there are thousands of overdone similes and metaphors, and there must not have been a single adjective left at harvard when he graduated - he took them all to use in this book. mr. scott is totally incapable of writing a noun without at least one adjective attached to it, and in most cases there are two or three just in case. consider this actual, unretouched quote from the book: "her cheekbones were colorado ski slopes, and her eyes were the color of an overchlorinated swimming pool." dear god, what did i do to deserve this?
if you like cheesy writing, this book will absolutely make you swoon. any legitimate literary critic that rated this book highly had to have been paid off by the publisher... the author simply tried way too hard, and the result is agonizing.

It was a decent novel that kept me turning the pages, although a below-average ending made me wish I would've turned the pages a little more slowly. The Heroine was way too smart, sexy, unemotional, and infallible. If you like to read about developing relationships, you'll be disappointed with this book. The villains are ghostly, totally ruthless Chinese who are too weird to find even remotely believable. Scott writes well, but I feel he wastes too much ink with overly detailed descriptions of a room and every piece of furniture, equipment, etc., in it. If the characters would have been a little more human and the ending a bit better, the author could've had a winner here. What I really trying to say is that this novel lacks real passion.

While I'm certain the author, Holden Scott, being a Harvard graduate, is an intelligent, well rounded person, he neglected to follow the sage advice, "Write what you know" in compiling this book. The premise for the book, ghosts explained as a virus, is intrigueing, though the errors and ancronisims that crept in due, apparently, to the authors lack of knowledge, ruined the story for me. From red oxygen tanks (they're green, as anyone who ever set foot in a hospital can tell you), to a scene where the main character is speeding at 90 MPH over a bridge in a BMW, windows rolled up (it's winter), and holding a conversation with another character "hears" the water "lapping at the bridge columns" (try it sometime!), to a lab researcher working with mice who thinks they eat cheese, the book is one mistake after another. By the time I finished it I was having more fun looking for the errors than I was from the story. It's obvious that Mr. Scott has ventured into areas he knows little about, and that's a shame. Better research and editing could have made this one a real winner.

Could it be that this talented writer was showing off in this his first novel under the name of Holden Scott? (Scott had written a few novels in his real name, Ben Mezrich). "Skeptic" has a marvelous premise, and if Scott had followed up a little more with this, instead of the James Bond espionage, he might have provided a truly original novel. As it stands, though, once the premise of how "ghosts" are made is introduced, it is used only once more effectively in a harrowing scene in a stable. Other than this additional scene, Scott doesn't truly explore how much fun this could have been. Instead he goes into the unbelievably chaotic scenario of having this brutal Chinese assasin out to dominate the world. By the end, though, one is not truly quite sure what exactly this new find would do in that regard.
I enjoyed most of the book; Amber Chen is way too "perfect" and Mike Ballantine is too James Bondish for a doctor. But suspending belief is nothing I'm opposed to doing; but in this particular novel, the characterizations are so undeveloped, and the plot so confusing, one ends up admiring Mr. Scott's skills and wondering why he didn't use them a little more effectively.
There is one huge surprise though in the "insider", but I'll leave that one original injection to your discovery.
RECOMMENDED BUT ONLY AS A DIVERSION.

Do you believe in ghosts?
That is the question Dr. Mike Ballantine is forced to confront--with
explosive results.
SKEPTIC begins fast and doesn't let up: Dr. Ballantine's best friend, the
newly elected governor of Massachusetts, dies in a bomb explosion, the
victim
of foreign assassins. But why? How could the murdered governor possibly be
connected with Chinese killers?
That's what Amber Chen, beautiful CIA operative, wants to know. Cold,
efficient and cunning, she is on the trail of an executioner from the
Chinese
Revolution, a brutal killer who slices off his victims' ears and scoops
out
part of their brains. His methods of torture are sadistic and infamous,
and
he knows she is after him.
Soon after his friend's murder, Mike finds himself plagued by strange
visions: a horse in the hospital hallway--one no one but him can see--and
frightening glimpses of conflagration and a gaunt Chinese man. He tries to
pass them off as manifestations of his grief, but is there more to it?
Deep in the bowels of Metro hospital a young woman has discovered a
secret,
one that will revolution science's understanding and acceptance of the
paranormal. But she is being watched and her work might just become the
most
terrifying weapon the world has ever known.
SKEPTIC is a lightning-paced, chilling mystery that explores alternate
explanations for the supernatural and blends in international intrigue and
political thriller. Can ghosts be isolated in the laboratory? Can they be
turned to evil? Pages hurl by and the tension builds to a fever pitch. A
couple of escapes near the end stretch believability a hair, but who
cares?
The action flies fast and furious and Amber Chen would probably give James
Bond a run for his money.
Warning: this book contains one of the most graphic descriptions of
torture
readers are likely to come across. There are some other pretty brutal
scenes
in the book as well.----
Howard Hopkins...

I recommend all books by this author.
I also love the fact that the publisher, 1stWorld Library (or 1stWolrd Publishing) has made the text slightly larger which is a blessing for my thirty-something eyes. Great job. I have dozens of books by this publisher.

The Second Declaration
Wild Knowing
Every Day A Miracle Happens
Les Miserables, Volume I & II
THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO Vol II
Animal Farm
Planets
American Buddha
Your Star Child: Attracting, Birthing and Parenting an Evolved Soul
The Devil's Disciple

It's interesting to read this book after 100 years have gone by. Twain, a self discribed cynic would by nature write this type of book. None the less, If you know people that have been healed by CS, you realize the impact that CS has on society over the last 100 years. I wonder what MT would have written about Martin Luther?

The book begins with a comic tale of how Twain once fell over a cliff in a remote area of Austria, and "broke some arms and legs and one thing or another." There was no medical doctor around, so someone suggested a Christian Science doctor a few miles away who could cure anything. Twain sent a messenger to fetch her. She sent a message back saying she couldn't conveniently come that day, but that there was no hurry since there was nothing the matter with Twain.

"Did you tell her I walked off a cliff seventy-five feet high?" Twain asked the messenger.
"Yes."
"And struck a boulder at the bottom and bounced?"
"Yes."
"And struck another one and bounced again?"
"Yes."
"And struck another one and bounced yet again?"
"Yes."
"And broke the boulders?"
"Yes."
"That accounts for it; she is thinking of the boulders. Why didn't you tell her I got hurt, too?"
"I did. I told her what you told me to tell her: that you were now but an incoherent series of compound fractures extending from your scalp-lock to your heels, and that the comminuted projections caused you to look like a hat-rack.. . . She said you would have these delusions, but must pay no attention to them. She wants you to particularly remember that there are no such things as hunger and thirst and pain."

OK. That's funny, but the book quickly descends into the ranting and ravings that were a hallmark of much of Twain's writing in his waning years.

Like Twain, many of the other people who have reviewed this book on Amazon obviously have a bone to pick, so to speak, but other than having a friend who died of Christian Science when I was in college, I have nothing in particular against CS or other forms of wishful thinking. I do have strong feelings about the book, however. I have read all of Twain's books, many of them several times. I love Twain's writing, but I rate this book, along with What is Man, at the absolute bottom of the heap. It is not particularly funny and Twain's arguments are often muddled. For example, he spends several paragraphs "proving" that because Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of CS, once mentions the Virgin Mary, Jesus, and herself in that order in the same sentence that she must rank herself above Jesus since the Virgin Mary obviously ranks below Him.

I did NOT enjoy this book, and if I ever get to Austria, I shall throw my copy off a cliff, if I can find one with sufficiently jagged boulders.

When Twain penned this book in 1907, the idea of spiritual healing was radical and new to this time and perhaps more than a little frightening. After all, in the early 20th Century, the "scientific method" was all the rage and with the advent of the germ theory, folks were pretty confident that all the answers lay in science.

But this is the 21st Century and hopefully, we know better now. Spiritual healing has been proven to be a real and true alternative to conventional medicine. Harvard Medical School now offers courses on "spirituality and healing" and "Spiritual healing practices."

I suppose it was easy to take potshots at Mrs. Eddy's new religion in 1907 when so many in the media were ready to denigrate a woman for having the nerve and audacity to establish a healing system (and a church and an international religion) wholly independent of the patriarchal and male-dominated field of medicine.

And to show Twain's confusion over this, he also stated in THIS book: "She [Eddy] was the most interesting woman who ever lived and the most extraordinary...It is 1300 years since the world has produced anyone who could measure up to Mrs. Eddy's waistbelt."

Twain amusingly eviscerates Mary Baker Eddy and her religion in this still-amusing book. A century later, his deft skewering of religious foibles and fantasies still delights. Would that he could see the world of today: Christian Science still exists, though in a much shrunken form, and hundreds (thousands!) of equally improbable cults thrive alongside it.

Where's Twain now that we really need him??

The only reason I gave this book one star is because zero stars isn't an option. This book is a waste of paper and ink.

There are several things about this book that greatly disturbed me.

First, this book is blantantly unbiblical. Most of the things in this book have no basis whatsoever in Scripture. This book is perfectly named. It contains nothing more than worldly wisdom and the author's often absurb interpretations of Scripture. It twists the teachings of Christ and Scripture to an almost unbelievable degree. Scriptures are often taken out of context and used to support man-made ideas.

I had high hopes for this book. A non Christian friend has asked some questions that I don't know how to answer. So I hoped this book would help me find the answers. Suffice it to say, I was very wrong.

It also concerns and grieves me that bible scholars such as Ravi Zacharias and JP Moreland have endorsed this book. Surely scholars of this caliber should be able to recognize the many unbiblical teachings in this book.

Many Christians are so guillible today. Many seem to believe that just because a person claims to be a christian it means they are.

This book is a perfect example of why discernment is so neccessary.

Do yourself a favor. If you are looking for answers, look elseware. I would recommend anything by Norman Geisler. Skip this book.

I hate to say this about a Christian apologist like Paul Copan, who has put out some very good apologetic material, but this book was horrendous. I mean it was absolutely terrible. I can't even begin to describe how many poor conclusions were reached and how many poor answers were given to problems raised with Christianity. He had EXTREMELY simplistic and EXAGGERATED explanations of what other faiths held (especially Eastern Pantheism, which he completely misrepresented).

On pages 98-99 Copan discusses the problem of natural disasters. Copan’s explanations in the previous parts of this chapter seem to deal only with moral evils which result from human choices, so here he attempts to address the issue of evil which seems not to stem from human choices. He argues that natural disasters are actually necessary to keep life on this planet alive (98). For example, earthquakes are needed to recycle essential nutrients back into the continents (98). I personally do not find his argument very convincing. I think that any Christian would need to tie natural evils into the Fall as Schaffer does in Genesis in Space and Time, where he presents natural evils as stemming from a rift which developed between man and nature as a result of sin. If we do not do this, it does not make much sense for God to curse the ground as a result of Adam’s sin, for it would already have been cursed if nothing in nature changed as a result of the Fall. Further, as a philosophical objection, surely God could have created a world where natural disasters were not necessary to sustain the earth. Copan responds to this by saying that we cannot know that a world with this condition is possible (98-99), but does he really believe that there will be natural disasters on the new earth? I sincerely hope that he has better expectations than that.

Copan also claims that all three members of the Trinity got together before Jesus became incarnate and decided what Jesus self-limitations should be (135). He makes it sound like God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit had this little business meeting and voted on what Jesus should have to give up in becoming human. I cannot imagine what Copan could possibly use to support this view, as we hardly have access to the logs from the Trinity’s meetings, nor do I see why this was a necessary point to be thrown in with the rest.

Copan had some absolutely horrible theological implications spread all over the book. For example, he had a chapter discussing how it could be that Jesus was tempted, since the Bible says that God cannot be tempted. Copan’s idea that Jesus mistakenly thought that he could sin when he in reality could not is not a view that seems particularly attractive to me. Copan seems to be stretching things a bit too far when he claims that Jesus simply thought that he could sin, therefore the temptation was real to him (141). Copan decided beforehand that Jesus could not sin because God cannot sin (though he fails to address the problem which he opens the chapter with in saying “if God cannot sin, then it seems he is not really free or all-powerful” [138]), and is forced to reduce himself to pulling some strange stunts to make his ends meet. Unfortunately for Copan, I do not think that concluding that Jesus must have been mistaken in his beliefs is an adequate way of making his ends meet. If Jesus was mistaken about his ability to sin, why should he not be mistaken about other things as well? Copan’s solution seems to simply open up an even larger can of worms than the one he is attempting to close with his answer.

Some of his answers to problems raised with Christianity are simply rediculous. For example, in the chapter discussing the Cananite genoicide, Copan says that the Israelite soldiers did not go around raping and brutalizing the Canaanites, as the Crusaders did to the Muslims (165-166). They were not fighting (in theory) out of love for bloodshed, but in obedience to God, and they fought under God’s morality even in battle (165-166). While this is helpful information, I am not sure that it really alleviates the problem addressed in this chapter: “how could a loving God command genocide?” I am not sure that a skeptic interested in the Christian faith would be comforted if we told him “well, God may have commanded genocide and killed every man, woman, and child of Canaanite blood, but He had the Israelites do it kindly and they weren’t even cruel to the Canaanites when they killed them.” It just seems to me the objection raised is that God commanded genocide, not that God had them killed cruelly. The killing of the Canaanites is the main issue, not how they died.

I could go on and on. It was simply a poor book, and if one accepted all the answers and explanations that he gave, one would end up as a open theist who believes in contradictory ideas and is ill prepared to actually give an answer for his faith when challenged by a skeptic. I cannot imagine many skeptics stupid enough to accept most of the answers that Copan gives in this book. There are good answers to the questions he addresses, he just does not give them.

Overall grade: D-

Having bought and/or read a number of books in this vein, Copan's work seems to be accessible and understandable by the lay person, yet at the same time offers enough depth for the person interested in deeper treatments of various subjects. The chapters are brief enough to keep the average person interested. I would recommend it as a primer for the non-academic who wants an introductory treatment of critical worldview issues.

I do have an issue with "Ben J"'s review of the book and its mischaracterisation of Copan. After browsing his other reviews, it seems he doesn't like ANY of the Christian books he's reviewed and seems to include the same hyper-critical elements in most of his reviews - as if he's working from the same template for all of them (including the non-orthodox position that the Bible teaches that everyone, Christian and non-Christian, will be saved, which runs absolutely contrary to the orthodox Christian position that has been held for 2000 years. How Ben pulls that out of Scripture is beyond me. The fact that Copan disagrees with that view makes Ben attacks his work. But I digress.....). But specifically here, his accusation that Copan's attitude in this book is to preach some message of "win the argument over the 'poor pitiful non-Christians' at all costs" is so offbase that it seems to me he threw that in there to mischaracterise Copan and throw the on-the-fence person off from considering it as a reading possibility.

On the contrary, Copan takes great pains, starting even in the first couple chapters and repeating it throughout the rest of the book, to talk about how Christians must conduct any discussions of critical issues in love and respect for other's viewpoint and always seek to build positive bridges between themselves and those they are trying to reach. "Ben J" read the book (at least I think he did), yet he can't see that. So it seems to me that Ben's problem is that he just doesn't want to see it at any cost, so he'll mischaracterise the book and the author with wild straw-man statements in the hopes that the unsuspecting reader will be convinced that Ben knows what he's talking about.

Get a copy of the book for yourself and then draw your own conclusion as to whether I am right on this or Ben is right. I'm confident as to which conclusion you will reach.

I read this book enjoying it at first, but after moving out of dealing with eastern religions/relativism, I found myself in constant disagreement with him. He seems to embraces the Arminian heresy, which leads him to suggest ideas that require the use of philosophy over scripture.

I really only recommend the first few chapters of this book, but when he moves into Christian apologetics, do yourself a favor and return the book to the library.

Paul is a friend of mine. We both graduated from TEDS under William Lane Craig, and we both attended Marquette University, but we did so at different times. We didn't meet until this year. As the author of the book "Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains," I am one of the skeptics he argues against.

I have honestly learned a few things in this book, and yet, I am still unconvinced by his arguments. Nonetheless, I have to say that his book offers in a concise way the results of evangelical scholarship on the questions he addresses. When I am arguing with Christians about a topic he speaks of, I take another look at what he says to see what the best interpretation of that topic is from a evangelical Christian perspective, and that's saying a lot, coming from a skeptic like me.

Paul's arguments that there was animal pain and death before the Fall and that God created human beings as meat-eaters (on pages 150-152), plays into my argument against the existence of God from the horrible suffering caused by the law of predation in our world, so I refer readers of my book to his on that point.

In any case, even though I disagree with him, this is a great Christian apologetics book on the issues he speaks about. And as odd as this sounds, I want to read more of what he writes so I can see what is the best that can be said for evangelical Christianity, since he represents it so well.

I didn't much care for this book. The famous chapters by topic sound simple enough but do cause some confusion--potent smatterings is the result in the main, which cannot hold my attention. If you are interested in Stoicism the most interesting comentary that I have found thus far is Sandbach's "The Stoics".

Quite a short book (just over 100 pages of meat) but it covers a lot of ground. Mostly it is concerned with the Stoic and Epicurean schools, and it compares them on a topic by topic basis. The Sceptics are (unsurprisingly) pretty much confined to epistemology, but their critiques of Stoic and Epicurean positions are frequently cited and commented on. One advantage of classical philosophy over most modern stuff is that the terminology is much simpler. This book could be read without any background in philosophy.

All in all a pretty good read

A better title for this book would be "Environmental Economics for Skeptics about Tree-Huggers". Its viewpoint hews very faithfully to the Econ 101 textbook version of neoclassical microeconomics. The author (WKJ) occasionally mentions other points of view in order to seem fair, but these are reassuringly dismissed.

For example, in discussing the so-called "environmental Kuznets curve," WKJ does mention that "the dust has definitely not settled on this debate" (@100). (The EKC is an alleged empirical relationship between economic development and declines in pollution; it's biggest fans are neoliberal economists who claim that the solution to environmental problems is more, not less, economic activity.) But already in the rest of that sentence ("[but] some important ideas have emerged") WKJ starts to talk as if the EKC is much less controversial than it actually is. The problem with the EKC is as time goes by, empirical evidence seems very much against it, especially for non-localized issues like global warming. No worries: WKJ tells us that "the absence of evidence of an EKC for some environmental indicators should not be construed as proof that the EKC notion is invalid." He spends the next 3-1/2 pages discussing why the EKC is "good news" (@104). For more nuanced evaluations of the EKC even within the framework of conventional econometrics (i.e., NOT by tree-huggers), see, e.g., D. Stern's 2004 paper, "The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve" and the 2006 paper by Galeotti & al., "On the Robustness of Robustness Checks of the Environmental Kuznets Curve," both of which you can find for free online.

The insincere appearance of fairness isn't the only rhetorical tactic used by WKJ to deal with difficult topics. Ignoring the difficulties is another, as when after a very confusing description of the construction of a staircase-shaped demand curve for cookies in a hypothetical classroom (@18-23) WKJ casually mentions that in the rest of the book demand curves will be continuous curves. In fact the aggregation of demand curves is a highly controversial topic even within neoclassical economics. Even Nobel laureate Gerard Debreu, who helped to put the neoclassical point of view on a highly mathematical foundation, himself questioned its validity.

Another tactic, thankfully confined to the final chapter, is a more judgmental and emotional dismissal of opposing ideas. For example, there is "high-quality" ecological economics (a particular flavor of environmental economics) and there is another sort. Unlike the type favored in Europe, the type favored in the US is not "high-quality"; it is "either noneconomic or antieconomic" (terms that are never explained) (@265). Herman Daly, the leading American proponent of ecological economics, who BTW has been much honored in Europe, is a "self-described ecological economist" whose characterizations of economics are "misleading" (@267), though we are never told how they are so, nor even about Daly's characterizations at all. In this concluding chapter, WKJ also perpetuates the fiction that economics is neutral ("The fact [is] that economics does not take sides," @271) and should be reserved to use by experts ("**When used as directed,** economics attepmts to add up people's preferences as reflected in their actions," @270 [emphasis added]). Interestingly, WKJ is conflicted on the question of neutrality; earlier, he tells us "Economic analysis is not 'value free.' That is, it is not neutral or independent with respect to moral or ethical considerations" (@247). I think this last quote is correct; it's too bad WKJ couldn't see the implications of this statement for the rest of the book.

All in all, this is a highly conventional treatment of a subject that deserves much more nuance, and in-depth discussion of controversies. Despite its age, Pearce & Turner's "Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment" (Johns Hopkins 1990; not substitutable by the 1993 "Environmental Economics: An Elementary Introduction" by Turner, Pearce & Bateman) is a much more enlightened and enlightening book.

"Philosophy & Atheism is a collection of essays on such topics as the definitions of agnosticism and atheism, flaws in theistic arguments, the incoherence of theism, the burden of proof and the presumption of atheism, humanistic ethics, and religion and rationality. This would probably not be a good introduction to atheism, but it would definitely be useful to anyone interested in methodological issues such as the definition and presumption of atheism." -- Jeffery Jay Lowder

WOW, am I dissapointed? I had more fun reading the begats. I don't think there was enough information here to allow me to debate with kids in a bible study class. Extremely repetative on every topic. Examples abound when one or two would suffice. The only reference to biblical scripture is in chapter fourteen. When a theist debates, they bring the bible. If you want to join the debate, you MUST have bible references as well. I suspect the author attempted to turn a two-page brochure into a 134 page book through over-justification. This book, in my opinion, does not live up to it's title. Even the reviewers on the reverse of the book do not speak of their new found debating skills. As for me, I'm an Atheist and believe that if there were a god, he would not live in the shadows of a mans mind. Do youself a favor, get a bible and a highlighter. First off, read 2Kings19 and Isaiah37 both at the same time. You'll be amazed at what two different writers, in different years, had to say about the same topic. Is that a major typo or what? Then get the "Book of Enoch" by Ron Brown and wonder why it was left out of the cannonized bible by the "Council of Laodicea" in the year 364AD, one of over 40 scriptures (books)banned by the council (the holy fathers). nuf said...

I was seeking a basic introduction to the more common arguments for and against belief in God so I bought this book based on its title and the fact it is short. It makes a reasonable attempt to outline arguments against theistic belief (i.e., belief in a God as usually defined by major religions). It addresses the common arguments put forward by believers in God (design, the first cause, knowing god through experience, faith, etc.).

In purchasing this book I had sought brevity of argument, and I was a little disappointed. Although the arguments are not long it doesn't provide the simple one or two line "debating points" some readers might be looking for to help them negotiate the next pair of door-knowking Mormons or Witnesses they encounter. People seeking dot-point replies to theistic assertions will not find them in this book. Should something that requires the reader to make their own summary list be called a "debater's handbook"? Maybe. But, it's too detailed to qualify as "atheism for dummies".

The Atheist Debater's Handbook is dry reading. Given that there is a pretty strong element of the ridiculous in lots of religious belief, a little humour would not have gone astray. As an undergraduate student a professor once described an essay I wrote as a "tradesman-like effort"; I'd say the same of this book. It is solid but unspectacular.

It's a good book for those who have just started exploring their atheism or for those who want to know the basics of non-belief. This book was one of the first I read when I was questioning what I believed, and it helped me explore my own thoughts. It's very basic, though. If you want a deeper and more thorough book, you should look elsewhere. This book just touches base with the some of the general reasons atheists see religion and god as illogical. It wouldn't be good for actually debating in everyday life.

Bad title, bad book. It leaves great black holes in logic and fails to include basic ideas. The reader is left wondering why the author has left one subject unfinished and leapt on to another. If one actually wants to debate, one is likely to come off poorly using this work.

An excellent work that actually provides all the ammunition one could want is George Smith's "Atheism : the case against God."

This book provides an excellent bird's eye view of atheistic philosophy, but falls remarkably short of being remotely useful when arguing with the average zealot.

I bought this book pumped about getting those fantastic barbs that one can plant quickly and effectively. What I got was a rehash of the month we spent on atheistic/theistic arguments in my freshman Philosophy 101 course. In being a quick rehash, it does a commendable job. The arguments are well spelled out in simple terms and frequent examples are given. The book is a very quick read. There are only 124 pages.

For quick shots in for an argument with your born-again cousin, I recommend you look elsewhere. I highly recommend From Preacher To Atheist and the Jesus Puzzle.

However there are some interesting tid-bits that I managed to file away in the Useful In An Argument file. The chapter on the problem of evil is quite well done. And as every casual atheist debater knows, the first thing you have to establish is that the burden of proof is on the theistic point of view. You will find lots of ammo on this topic. The chapters on God and the Mind and God on the Universe are useful, but you will find more good information elsewhere.

All in all, I would contend that this book provides an excellent introduction to scholarly study of theistic/atheistic arguments, but lacks the punch and brevity of argument required for more casual debate.

Three stars -HawkeyeGK

This so called book was a joke. Instead of academic argument in defense of socialism, all I found in this book was grand claims without any support or argument. It would seem like there was nothing but propaganda written, it focused so much on "human nature," but did not present any counter arguments. The writing was designed in such a way that any fair competition or defense of capitalism became impossible. Any reality about economy, politics or society was colored by romantic ideals, and I cannot stress on the fact that absolutely no argument or proof was presented in this book. I am an ardent capitalist, but I wanted to read and explore socialism openly and scholarly; instead I got this book, I am perhaps more in favor of capitalism now than I was before reading this traumatic piece of literature. Please do not purchase this writing.

This book is really well written intruduction to the world of Socialism, i gave it to all my Capitalizt friends... now it's just wait and see

I don't know who would be convinced by any of her arguments unless you're already a socialist. Much of the book is your usual ranting against the evil "mega-capitalists" and their "capitalist hell." When she actually tries to prove a point she leaves many holes in her arguments.

For example, she claims that prices are not determined by trade, but instead are based on a commodity's inherent "real value." This inherent real value "comes from the labor invested in it." This is the classic labor theory of value (which contradicts itself). Consider what this theory implies if two identical and equally useful products are produced (product A and product B). However, product A was created by ten of hours of "labor" while product B was created by only five hours of "labor." According to this theory, product A has TWICE the "real value" of product B!

There is more to the labor theory of value, but she fails to go any further into it which of course will not help her convince any "skeptics" like me.

If she is actually going to convince a skeptic, she should be a bit less hostile to opposing opinions and more thourough with her arguments. A more appropriate title for her book would be Socialism for Socialists.

If you are a Bible class teacher and know the Scriptures well, then you may find this book helpful for educating yourself on many current objections to Jesus and religion. However, be careful. The author states some things as facts that are directly opposite to what the Bible teaches. I would definitely not give or recommend this book to someone who does not have a good biblical background.

British evangelist and Anglican educator Michael Green needs little introduction. His half dozen or more books and lecture tours have been well received in South Africa, Australia, Canada, the USA and England. This volume, a substantial update of his 1976 work, You Must Be Joking, presents no danger of diminishing Green's reputation. It is a fine reworking of an already beloved volume and it is a refreshing application of Gospel truth.

Content-wise, Avoiding Jesus is taken up with banishing religious poppycock. It's a plea for moving beyond the shallow and escapist objections that one is likely to encounter when a work colleague, fellow student, or family member learns that you are a Christian who actually believes in Christianity. While there is nothing new or profoundly original here, yet Green has gathered together a dozen of the most commonly heard objections to biblical faith. From the ubiquitous "All religions lead to God," to the perennial "I'm not the religious kind," all the way through to the contemporary "Didn't Jesus have a baby with Mary Magdalene?" Green has provided us with a compendium of useful responses to the most common barbs of the cynics and skeptics we all know.

Beyond the general content, the strengths of the book are several. First, although the opening and closing chapters do lend to the volume a sense of it being a cumulative case argument, yet the individual chapters are mostly freestanding and therefore can be read in any order. This makes Green's Avoiding Jesus a good way to `bone up' so as to be ready and prepared to give an answer back. Second, although Green adopts an essentially evidentialist methodology, yet his arranging of the facts is never naïve. He is aware of the noetic effects of sin and he is even more aware of the kinds of motivations that distort and lead to downplaying belief in God. In this regard Green is a model to apologists of all stripes; he not only answers the particular objection but does so with an awareness of where it comes from and how it functions for the questioner. Third, Green writes with a tone that one does not always hear these days. He writes for those who do not want to be pandered or played to. He writes for those who like to be addressed respectfully but minus the `kid gloves.' Again, Green is a model in how tirelessly he moves from addressing the objection to proclaiming the Gospel.

In terms of weaknesses, they are few indeed. From a personal standpoint, I thought his treatment of science and faith to be rather weak. Not only does he conclude by positing a theory of theistic evolution in which God may "have bestowed autonomy upon creation and allowed the world to make itself from the bottom up" (p.44), but he leaves us with a faith that is in one sense captive to science. (The scientific procedure is still the bar by which we make our measurements concerning faith). The second weakness that bears mentioning is the bibliography that concludes this work. Not only does the age of many of the titles listed as further reading reflect that this volume had a previous life, but it fails to direct us to many excellent works that could ably supplement and strengthen the topics spoken to here. While I do not expect an author to always list what I may consider important books, yet I do believe the limited bibliography that we are supplied with negatively impacts upon the usefulness and the longevity of this volume.

When all is said and done, however, Avoiding Jesus is a good book that is written in a candid and forthright style. It is an unapologetic apologetic. In this work Christian men and women from all walks of life will find encouragement for themselves and biblically rooted truthful responses to those they are engaged in speaking with.