Hey is this The God Delusion thing an original work or does it have some cited references too? Basically I get a big boner for books with radically different opinions where the author at least took the effort to find other individual research to back up their claims.

I'll probably read it, but I think there's an inherent problem even if it cites sources well. Allow me to illustrate.

This conspiracy theorist I worked with bought me You Are Being Lied To, a book chock full of conspiracy theory essays. I wasn't even going to read any of it but then I noticed Noam Chomsky was one of the authors and I at least read his piece, which I admit had a good point. Anyway what impressed me was that even the most loony essays in the book had several sources cited.

The problem is, the sources that were cited were, more often than not, sources that could only be considered credible if you already subscribed to the theory. While I lack a concrete example, in general it was as if a documentary on the existence of sasquatch were using Art Bell as a serious reference. If I already have a strong belief in sasquatch, then odds are I view Art Bell as more credible than the average person.

This is the reason why I think it is futile for a Christian to argue with an atheist. The Christian makes the fundamental assumption that the Bible is a sacred text and anything that disagrees with it is wrong. The atheist makes the fundamental assumption that the Bible is at best a history of the Jewish people mixed with folklore and mysticism, and anything in it is suspect.

Because of the opposing assumptions, the argument between a devout Christian and a devout atheist is a stalemate. The Christian's only source of evidence is the Bible*, a book the atheist does not accept as a credible reference. The atheist's strongest source of evidence is scientific facts that discredit interpretations of the Bible, which the Christian is already prepared to disbelieve**.

In short, I believe everyone makes a personal decision to follow something that works for them. I believe everyone gets along better when the discussion of these beliefs is voluntary and welcomed. Because of this, I've never believed in door-to-door evangelism; if someone wants to hear about Jesus they will ask me or someone else. Life is much better when we let each other be, and honestly I think that was a big part of Jesus' message. I think what He really wanted is what I kind of have always wanted out of atheists: make your point, provide your evidence, concede that your evidence only proves the point in the context of your beliefs, then let the other individual decide if your beliefs make sense to them.

Does this mean there are many paths to Heaven? Not in my opinion, but I do think it means that some of the more aggressive evangelistic Christians will be held accountable for the souls they have turned away from Christ. Trust me, I hold them with pretty much the same contempt that I believe you do.

*Logic is not a tool of religious debate, or, more appropriately, religious debate is not something that can be debated with proper logic. Every logic class I took discussed early on that in matters of faith, the conclusions are based on hypothesis that may not be logically provable. Because of this, matters of faith are not to be considered topics of logical debate. Any "logical" proof that God must exist almost always relies on the implicit belief that He exists in the first place, which is a fallacy. The only way in which logic may be used against an atheist is to point out fallacies in the atheist's arguments, taking care to avoid "fallacies" that are only fallacies if you implicitly believe in God's existence.

**Because matters of faith are, by their nature, illogical, a believer has usually encountered many of the arguments an atheist could put forth and found a way to resolve them with their beliefs. In some cases, the believer is willing to stand against scientific proof; this is a show of good faith but possibly a sign of poor thought. However, I believe the only entities with the authority to judge a belief system as correct are the individual and the deity(ies) that may or may not exist. We'll all find out one day.

--EPILOGUE--
Also I really hate this argument because, try as I might, I always spell "atheist" the wrong way and have to correct it.