I read about the Secret Service seizure of "million-dollar" bill tracts: one side looks like currency. The other side has a religious message, and the address of the publisher. (Sounds like a good counterfeit to me!)

So I'm curious as to what president they chose to put on the fictional denomination. I visit the publisher's web site, hoping for a look. The author is named Ray Comfort, and he's selling a book on Nostrodamus, whose stuff is incredibly vague. So I wonder if he's being serious, or if it's just a hook to present the prophecies in, say, Isaiah. So I got to Amazon, looking for reviews...

Which brings me to a review which says one of Comfort's refutations of atheism is full of holes (possible: there are indeed many fallacious arguments on each side), and directs the reader to The Case Against God.

At first, I do my usual: "Wonder if he's got a point?" thing. Seems like the reviewers are generally atheists (even the ones pretending to be fake Christians). From what I can see, Smiths' argument boils down to this: Christians cannot absolutely prove God exists, so you shouldn't believe in God; atheism is simply failing to believe in God.

Huh? So what are agnostics? Oh yes, all agnostics are atheists now too. As are New-Agers and animists if they believe in spiritual forces but not a theistic God, per se. As, I suppose, are Buddhists, who also don't believe in the theistic god.

It's amazing how you can change your group's membership from a tiny minority to a good chunk of the world just by altering a definition.

The problem is that Smith's definition is dishonest and ahistorical: Atheism comes from Greek atheos, for no-god. It's athe-ism -- meaning nogod-ism, an active assertion there is no God -- not no-theism, a mere failure to be a theist. Pantheists are not atheists, Mr. Smith.

And of course, if Christians cannot "prove" God, we must all become atheists. But atheists are not required to "prove" anything. (How convenient!)

Of course, Christians, as far as I've seen, cannot "prove" God any more than I can prove you exist -- frankly I cannot do either. If you already buy Smith's assumption that atheism should be the default, then, of course, this will resonate with you. But that's a bit circular, don't you think?

And what is the default assumption, if nobody can "prove" either? It is that God doesn't exist? Why should that be a default any more than God does exist? Isn't the default to enter a debate with no particular opinion and an open mind, and then see where the evidence points one? So I see the default as "agnostism", which Mr. Smith desires we call "atheism" instead.

Thinking these thoughts, and re-examining the cover, I remembered I had picked up a copy of this in Borders, while hanging out with a friend. Page after page simply relied upon fallacious straw man arguments: you could open it at random and tear it apart. We laughed at his ignorance: It seemed to us that Mr. Smith couldn't even be troubled to learn the basics about the religion he thought he was refuting.

For example, one page fell open to an argument based on the premise that Christians define faith as belief without any supporting evidence. I have never met a Christian who uses that definition, nor even a layman: When you say you have "faith" that your wife has not slept around, do you mean you have no evidence at all? Or do you mean that you have plenty of evidence, but that this is one of those unprovable things? When a man says he has "faith" in the stock market, does it mean he has no evidence that it makes people wealthy? Sure, he can't prove that it will continue to do so, but, again, he's using the inductive reasoning we all employ every day.

And I guess I'm not the only theist who noticed this:

I am a college student and a Christian. I have enjoyed reading this book. If you notice I gave this book 5 stars. Why? because if you're a Christian get this book, it's hilarious! As much as I respect this work, it is filled with misconceptions about the God of Christianity. Unfortunatly, many Christians would not be able to defend their position against Mr.Smith. But, I will tell you the flaw(s) splashed in this book.

If you examine Mr. Smith's style of argumentation you see he builds on certain lines of thought in which he assumes theists maintain. Where he got these assumptions is probably from Christians and self professed scholars of divinity who in their "wisdom" actually prove their ignorance. This book is proof of that! This book is built on misconceptions, therefore, it is invalid!! As I read this book, as an evangelical protestant, I tell you the conclusions he has drawn from those misconceptions are logically correct.

But, he has constructed a systematic refutation of Christian theism to the ignorant, based on his own misconceptions he has drawn from ignorant theists. In this book all Mr. Smith has done is refute his own misconceptions of theism.
Every line of thought he constructed, I could present his misconception, replace it and refute it and I'm only 21!!

I often felt like that while reading Betrand Russell's attacks. And I was something less than 21 at the time. Here was the greatest logician of all time, or so I was told, and I was apparently poking serious holes in his arguments. It's not that we're all so wise, it's just that it's much easier to win an argument when the evidence is with you, not against you.