Can you give specific examples?

They want to really be effective with the thought class

Quote:

They want to really be effective with the thought class

That's not a problem at all. We already are. Overwhelmingly, I might add.

I'm sure you were just trying to be funny, but The Panda takes great offense to a comparison with these psychotic imbeciles. You must smoke 10 joints, eat a cake, and take a weeks vacation as penance for your sin. If you do not do this within a month, your soul will belong to the evil Moose, and you'll be stuck on a leaky Canoe for all eternity.

This short book (108 pages) is an informative guide to the challenge of the New Atheists and their challenge to Christian theism. Mohler targets the "four horsemen of the New Atheism" - Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.

Chapter one briefly surveys the history of atheism and situates the new atheism within secularism.

Chapter two is the most helpful chapter of the book; it discusses New Atheism's assault on Theism by giving thumbnail sketches of the "four horsemen,"then pointing out eight common features of their assault on theism: (1) The New Atheism is marked by an unprecedented new boldness; (2) There is a clear and specific rejection of the Christian God of the Bible; (3) The New Atheists explicitly reject Jesus Christ; (4) The New Atheism is specifically grounded in scientific argument; (5) The New Atheism is new in its refusal to tolerate moderate and liberal forms of belief; (6) The New Atheism attacks toleration; (7) The New Atheists have begun to question the right of parents to inculcate belief in their own children; and (8 ) The New Atheists argue that religion itself must be eliminated to preserve human freedom.

Chapters three and four discuss the defense of theism poised against by the New Atheists by various theologians and philosophers, including Alistair McGrath, Alvin Plantiga, Tina Beattie, and John F. Haught. While agreeing with some points of their arguments (especially McGrath and Plantiga), Mohler's primary criticism is that these responses represent various levels of accomodation. In contrast, Mohler argues that "Evangelical Christians simply cannot surrender biblical authority, propositional revelation, and biblical theism in order to meet the various challenges presented to us in the twenty-first century" (102). There are only two alternatives, atheism or biblical, Christian theism.

Unfortunately, this book does not itself present an argument for biblical theism. The book doesn't deliver on its subtitle, "a Christian confronts the New Atheists," for there isn't much confrontation with, and no detailed argumentation against, the New Atheists. That was disappointing. Readers who want thoughtful engagement with the New Atheists will have go elsewhere. (I'd suggest Timothy Keller's The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.)

That said, the second chapter of this book made it worth reading for me. I appreciated the review and summary of the various NA books.

Has anyone looked at the book that he came on to promote.
Looking at the reviews it got me questioning whose side he's really on.
 

More from TIME:

The implications for society are enormous. "We are watching the moral and social landscape of the nation be transformed before our eyes," Mohler said. "The institution of marriage is so central to human society and, at the same time, so central to Christian theology that it is almost impossible to calculate the magnitude of this challenge. This is a deeply troubling and sobering moment."

The tone of the book is strident, the content of the book is bracing, and the attitude of the book is condescending. Nevertheless, Dawkins insists that his strident attack upon the faith is limited to words. "I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement," he insists. He even allows that "we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions" of organized religion, "and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals," he asserts. Nevertheless, all this must be done without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions." Further: "We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage."All this raises more questions than Dawkins answers. If belief in God is so intellectually abhorrent, why would anyone want to retain the traditions associated with these beliefs? Why does Dawkins acknowledge that all this amounts to "a treasured heritage?" It must be because, in the end, even Richard Dawkins is not as much of an atheist as he believes himself to be. If Dawkins is so certain that theism is dead, why would he devote so much of his time and energy to opposing it? A man who is genuinely certain that Christianity is passing away would feel no need to write a 400-page book in order to urge its passing.