Rating: 
Summary: One question...
Review: Upon reading Barker's account of going from "Christian" preacher to avowed atheist, I honestly wonder if he was really a Christian in the first place. There is more to being a Christian than what you do with a chunk of your time. It's about whether you are in relationship with Christ. A Christian is who you are, not what you do. Barker seemed on the outside to be devoted to Christ, but in his heart it appeared more like he was going through the motions and "playing Christian." I don't think that the book is really about Barker's conversion from Christian to atheist as much as it is about his choice to be open with the unbelief that was already there in the first place. So in terms of how we look at the book, it's not written from the perspective of an atheist that converted from Christianity, it's written from a perspective of an atheist who is a product of a lifetime of unbelief.
Rating: 
Summary: Finally someone questions theistic BS!
Review: This is a wonderful book, and shocking being that here is man who was so endowed in Christinaity, and after 35 years of his life walks away from it. He is not telling people how to think, just why he feels a certain way he is correct. Nowhere in this book does he ever tell people what to think; it's impossible to do that in atheism. This book gave me a deeper insight into atheism, because I am already a skeptic. I can relate to many of his experiences... He studied for years to be a preacher. He has written a lot of Christian music that is still selling today. He went on missionaires, and he himself, said he was 100% for sure of Christianity, then later became 100% unsure. ...Read this book with an open mind. Barker is not saying he is better than others, or that he is right. He is merely giving another side to the traditional religious arguments that people believe without question. Even he said that you don't have to agree with him a number of times throughout this book. This book is a challenge to theists, especially statements as "Why does life have to have meaning" to attacking the popular theist arguments as Pascals Wager to Ontological Argument. The only reason people are giving this a low rating, is because they are too scared to have their beliefs challenged. It scares them to realize that a god might not exist, or that their is no heaven or hell. Learn to stretch, because if you aren't stretching in life, you arent growing. True openmindness means reading viewpoints that you might disagree with. As Barker says, "People that don't question authority are easy prey for predators."
Rating:
Summary: Mind Opening
Review: This book, written in the plain style of a man grappling with his own inner demons, made me think about God, religion and the way things are. I haven't stopped thinking since I read it. If you're not afraid to explore your doubts, read this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Dear Atheist
Review: According to Barker: "No one can tell you what to think" (p.47). Well, why is he telling me what to think, then? Anyway, Barker calls himself an "honest freethinker" (p.109), yet he continues to "receive royalties" (p.24) from Christian songs he's written. Why does he continue to make money from the very thing he finds false? That's like a pro-abortionist fueling his cause by making money using anti-abortion propaganda. Furthermore, Barker says, "Even as a child I fervently pursued truth" (p.53). Yet, he admits, "My attitude at the time (college) was that it is not necessary to know how an automobile works in order to drive; nor is it imperative to become a biblical scholar or theologian in order to save souls from damnation. All of that could be left to the experts..." (p.22). Does that seem like someone who fervently pursues truth? Barker says, "We should start with nature. We should start with the nonexistence of God and then the believer should argue for God's existence..." (p.91). Meaning, we must be naturalistic in our approach on the question of God's existence. Does this seem like a "complete impartiality on both sides" (p.91) for religionists and naturalists? Is it looking "at it from all sides" (p.54)? Why is it that if one must be neutral and impartial, you have to be naturalistic? Furthermore, facts like "nature" don't speak for themselves. Even Barker would agree on this: "We see what we want to see" (p.73) and "...there are adequate natural explanations for all fact..." (p.89). Yet, later, he says, "If something is a fact, we don't invoke faith to accept it - it should be true on its own merits" (p.95). Furthermore, Barker claims, "...the probability for the existence of a supernatural being can be safely dropped to zero. It must be dropped to zero, in the name of honesty" (p.90). At the outset he has already dismissed theism. That is not honesty! Since he admits he is assuming a naturalistic worldview, he won't ever find the existence of a supernatural being - God. And yet this is the worldview Barker wants us to use. That is not being neutral or impartial. It's no wonder Barker claims, "Everyone knows that the bible contains accounts of miracles, and that alone is enough justificaltion for any rational person to conclude that there may be better uses on one's time than studying Scripture" (p.93) and "Theism implies a supernatural realm. Science limits itself to the natural world. So theism can never be consistent with science, by definition" (p.129). Barker says, "But these things (spirits) are never observed apart from a physical brain, and can not be said to really "exist" on their own. They are functions of a brain organism. It would be just as silly to say that digestion can somehow exist apart from its being a function of a stomach, or similar organism" (p.113). If this is true, one must ask then, would the number "two" ever exist if we ever existed? Furthermore, if our minds are contingent to our brains, and if our brains tell us that A is non-A at the same time, then we're right! And, since we can think things into existence, we can surely say that two and two equal five. This is just the tip of the iceberg of some of the fallacies I found in this "book you can hand that relative who insists on debating religion with you" (p.11). Bear in mind, this is more like an anthology of Barker's writings. There were about three times I read where he took a missionary trip to Mexico. This book needed some editing because it wasn't well written.
Rating:
Summary: Horrible!!
Review: I can't believe this! You have got to be kidding me! I could sit here for years and analyze the wrongs to this book! I'll give you one example on the review page he says that God ordered the sacrifice of human and animal blood for Him??? It's not the angry, revolting God we think of, it's all symbolic! The slaying of the lambs and other animals are ONLY sybolic for the coming Christ and what he did for us. He sacrificed himself, and until then, the Jews of the Old Testament had nothing to atone for their sins! You've heard this over and over and I can't believe the load of it I am hearing about this. You have to be kidding me...
Rating:
Summary: A very interesting another view of the Christianity
Review: This book simply put the Christianity and most theist arguments down. If you can forget the terrible threats of hell and sulfur lake of the "lovely" Christian God for those who doubt of bible and if you can keep your mind away from prejudices, you can seriously start to think of reviewing all your beliefs after reading this book. Of course if you can't even try to understand different thoughts of your own, your feelings won't be different of some reviews full of "ad homimem" arguments in this site. It's also interesting to check the many Barker's texts freely available on his site. His texts helped me very much in my hurting transition from modern Christianity to the freethought. In time: I'm agnostic.
Rating:
Summary: What a sad lost fool!
Review: This book is amazingly honest and forthright. It is rare to see someone so clearly display their self-righteous egocentric and bigoted views while trying to appear noble... This is truly a poor excuse for a theology, and someone who is afraid to deal with truth... I am only glad I consider myself agnostic so he cannot be grouped in with me. Wow...
Rating:
Summary: Two sides of the same coin
Review: ----This book is written well and I believe is honest from the author's perspective. I do admire the author for his ability to speak openly and honestly, but am at the same time concerned with some of his conclusions. It is ironic that there have been some that have deemed the a "freethinker". I believe this is very different from honesty of thought. What I mean is, this should not be confused with the ability to freely think through constructs and philosophical paradoxes and such, but rather it is a close-minded label used by some rather boorish atheists and pseudo-intellectuals to try and puff themselves up with importance. Most often if you look closely, self-labeled "freethinkers" rarely are just that. One of the most obvious points that stuck out for me was his characterization of Jesus and the message of Jesus. I have known many Christians in my day, some of them the simpletons that he was, but most good intelligent and very rational people who try hard to emulate the teachings of their Lord, and who seek on a daily basis to do His will. What is this will? Well, I have read the New Testament, and it seems pretty clear to me. Love your god with all your heart mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus presented what were then radical concepts such as turning the other cheek, walking two miles if asked to do one (See Roman Soldier history to understand this), and his symbolic language in his parables about the values of being humble and feeding and caring for the poor, and our treatment and love of our neighbor, are the foundation for what the entire western moral value system is based on. Yet somehow, through all his years as a Christian Mr. Barker never understood this? I find that hard to believe as even a quick read through one of the Gospels lays this out very clearly. Somehow he came to the conclusion that Jesus, the same person who regularly teed off the others by conversing with, and eating with the outcasts and unclean, was somehow telling everyone that if they followed him they would be better than everyone else? It is far more likely that Mr. Barker felt then as a Christian (and still does feel this way as an atheist) that he himself was better than everyone else and projected this into the writings of Jesus. I have read them. It just isn't there. This book in the end is a sad story of simple-minded man who lacks the assurances of his beliefs and feels that the only way to know something is to forsake all rational thought, and attack vehemently any credibility from the opposite view. That he does this as a "Christian", and is now doing it as an "atheist" is not hard to believe. It is after all, merely the same close-minded bigoted beliefs he held as a Christian, neatly flipped over to the opposite viewpoint, but held in the same manner. He lacks any credibility whatsoever, and the only persons who are likely to agree with his childish and juvenile rants here are those who are like-minded in their narrow thinking and self-righteous arrogance. It is obvious, even from an "outside" perspective, that there is tremendous good in Christianity and in the Bible. I have seen and still witness daily the feeding of the poor and homeless in the name of Jesus Christ. As I stated, I have known a great many Christians who know full well the verses he claims are "hidden", and if asked will explain the context, or will admit they do not fully understand the meaning. The bottom-line here? These are the close-minded views of a man unable to grasp what he thinks he understands, and who is as bitter and self-righteous as an atheist as he likely was as a Christian. The common denominator here is not the Bible or anything in it, but rather Mr. Barker himself.
Rating:
Summary: I don't understand it.
Review: First, Barker says that no one has the right to tell you what to think. Yet he goes into debates and publishes this book to influence people how to think. Then, he says (in terms of morality), that no one has the right to tell anybody what to do. Yet Barker judges God and Christians and others. Surely, you guys can see how he's contradicting himself, right?
Rating:
Summary: Clearing some things up here.
Review: ...This is a very well written book. It is also very insightful because it is written by a man who has lived on both sides of the tracks. Its too bad some people feel the need to rate this book on their feelings of his views and not the quality of the book. These are the same people who I am sure praise just about any Christian book they read just because it is Christian and it has such a "powerful" message, no matter how bad the book was written. I say all that to say this. Do not think that this book is a bad book because some people gave it one star, because it is only a reflection of their unwillingness to listen to ideas that are different from their own.
| 
