Your quoted site contains some strange statements. Some examples:
'From the standpoint of a scientist, the claims are flawed because, first, there are no sacred books, and, second, although many members do believe in this special relationship, beliefs alone do not make something true.'
The last part is accurate of course belief in God does not make God exist anymore than belief in no God makes Him not exist(!) but how does science prove whether a book is sacred or not? What experiments can you do?
'4. Conquering death of people
Some religious leaders tell their members that people can live forever in Heaven.....
Let us examine the subject of longevity. Studies by actuaries indicate that the odds are more than one billion to one against a person surviving to the age of 140 years. No human has been known to live to the age of two hundred years.'
This is a marvellous non-sequitur! Religious leaders tell people they will live forever in Heaven but no human has been known to live to two hundred years. The last phrase implied but omitted is of course 'on earth'. If that had been put in, it would be obvious that the last part has nothing to do with the first part.
You have to wonder whether the author of this article does not understand very simple logic or is wilfully attempting to mislead because of his own personal agenda.
Sadly his grasp of statistics is at least as bad if not worse than his knowledge of logic.
'People at horse races sometimes wager on the combined outcome of several races. This type of bet is called a parlay. The odds against winning a parlay usually are much worse than picking the winner of a single race. For instance, if the odds against the selected horse in each of three races are 3 to 1, 20 to 1, and 8 to 1, the odds against all three horses winning is 480 to 1'
Assuming these are genuine (not bookmakers') odds the answer is actually 755 to 1 as 3 to 1 against means 1 in 4, 20 to 1 ,1 in 21 etc. so the chance is 1 in 4 X 21 X 9 equals 1 in 756 or 755 to 1 against.
'In the education of youth, the advantage often goes to the religious institution. The religious confidence games and bigotry are taught weekly or daily in their schools. The religious beliefs are drummed into the students by frequent and enthusiastic repetition.'
Marvellous generalisation. Certainly not true in the UK where for many years even basic christian beliefs have been given very limited time in the corriculum whilst the atheistic view of evolution of the universe and life is constantly repeated as fact in many different forums and subjects.
'By comparison, almost no one makes a living by opposing the idea of sacred books. Few people are actively involved in challenging the validity of the religious confidence games and in countering the spread of bigoted religious beliefs. The chances would seem slim to accomplish any significant reduction in the public's belief in Sacred Books and the accompanying religious bigotry.'
Not Richard Dawkins, Dan Brown and many many more less famous people, incluing a whole range of authors, playwrights, TV producers etc.?!
I assume the 'MD' after his name implies he is a doctor of medicine. Perhaps he should stick to that rather than logic, philosophy, theology, general science and mathematics, at none of which he appears to excel!
If he is really one of the best atheist 'thinkers' you can quote, I suggest that it is atheism that is in real trouble!
