An Atheist Review of the Newberg Debate

   I was directed to this review of the debate from Saturday. I am thankful the writer identified himself as an atheist, for that, at least, explains the oddity of the review found in its praise of Godless. He writes, “I, as an Atheist, was happy to see Dan Barker defend our positions so deftly. I would invite anyone to read “Godless” or any of his works.” After he abandoned the entirety of his argumentation on the very topic of the debate in Godless, and in essence admitted that his arguments on that topic were not worthy of even being presented, let alone defended, against knowledgable opposition, what would lead someone to think that the rest of his book is any more carefully or accurately researched?