This was an enjoyable read that made me giggle many times while reading it! I do not recommend it to people that are overly religious, as they may be offended.

<i>May the Farce be With You</i> by Pamela Sutter was not the book I expected it to be, but I found myself enjoying it immensely as I read. The unfortunate thing about this book, however, is that the people who need to hear it the most are unlikely to ever pick it up and even more unlikely to agree with it. But the thing that is really important to recognize about this book is that the arguments within it are completely backed by logic. Religion is, unquestionably, an emotional creation and response. And as someone who is emotional most of the time, I can understand its pull, but this is one instance in which logic far outweighs emotion. And I truly do wish that more people were able to see that. While I will say that <i>May the Farce be With You </i> was not the book I expected it to be--not as lighthearted as it could have been and filled with a lot fewer comics than I expected--I loved so much about this book.

Now, here's the thing; <i>May the Farce be With You</i> is by no means perfect. It's not going to change many minds and definitely has a few flaws. But, at the end of the day, the ideas behind the book are more sound than any argument any religious person could ever make to me. But I will say that the tone of the book is going to insult people. No one wants to be called stupid, and people who vehemently insist their beliefs are facts--a fallacy in its own right--are not going to enjoy being told that they are stupid for believing. You cannot change minds and you cannot get people to think by insisting that they are dumb. That's just a recipe for creating a stubborn refusal to listen.

I tend to err on the side of atheism with the understanding that, if one day some form of proof is provided in a logical and reasonably understandable way, I am open to changing my mind. I am not agnostic and so I don't believe that there is <i>definitely</i> something out there. It's possible, but so are a great deal of other things. I will never support something as a fact without a great deal of logical evidence to back it up. And I completely agree with many of the viewpoints presented in this novel. But I do recognize where some of the language and the way it is presented can come off as arrogant. And this is unfortunate because I wish more people could see the lack of logic that exists within the idea of pure belief, faith, or religion. The arguments made for why a god or gods do not exist are far more reasonable than the arguments made for why they do. But faith refuses to accept this most of the time and while this book does attempt to shine light on these truths, I don't see everyone accepting them.

<i>I was provided a free copy of this book via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.</i>

Well! Well written, well argued, well thought out. But then I'm an atheist, and I've argued the same and similar points many times. The problem is, this book will be preaching to the choir! Atheists will agree, and believers will never read it. But congratulations to the author for writing it! Maybe a few agnostics will choose a side.

My thanks to NetGalley for the opportunity to read this book in exchange for an honest review.

I thought lighthearted meant funny. Well this little book isn't. A whole lot of logic presented here, but not enough to convince believers to not believe in God.

As a fairly mellow agnostic (as opposed to a militant athiest), I enjoy books that look at what the author perceives as fallacies about God and religion. You know what I'm talking about, like the story of the house that burned down with the owner in it, but the bible on the night stand wasn't touched at all and "IT'S A MIRACLE" except someone died, Carol, that's the opposite of a miracle....

And for the title to include the word 'lighthearted', which is a rather lofty claim for anyone dealing with this subject matter. I was definitely intrigued. And sadly, I don't think it lived up to the claim.

The cartoons were not really cartoons, but one off drawings. The pages are full of your basic athiest arguments, there's not really any new ground covered here.

It's not a bad book, but it's not what's promised in the title.

May the Farce Be With You uses logical arguments, illustrated with cartoons, to point out the main flaws in Christian logic. Most Atheists will have heard or thought of these things before, but sometimes it's helpful to hear someone phrase it in a different, more pithy way. This is not a book that is likely to convince believers of the error of their ways, but rather it might be good for someone who already has doubts but hasn't figured out how to put them into words yet.

This book is a nice succinct (and lighthearted) list of some of the most prevalent arguments against the Judeo-Christian God.

It starts out with some of the basics - the problems with miracles, prayer, and heaven.

These are (as always) really good points.

Like, “miracles” are miracles only in hindsight, and that miracles are in the eye of the beholder. Yeah - we can totally spin truth however we want to make these things come true.

I really struggled with this - in the church I grew up in, we vehemently denied the existence of miracles (my church was cessationist, believing that the ability to lay on hands and give miracles died with the apostles who knew Jeus). However, we still prayed, asking God for stuff. I really don’t understand the point of this - if we don’t believe that God intervenes in our lives like that, why are we asking for things like healing? It’s confusing.

This kind of thing troubles me, too: the specificity that so many Christians place in how you come to God.

<i>…God cares more about the flattery of His own ego…</i>

Yeah…people that suggest that you have to go through certain steps to prove to God that you love Him, so He will grant you eternal life, even if you aren’t a decent person; but if you are a good person and don’t do these things, you can’t go to heaven. That seems like a petty, petty god.

And, yeah…pets in heaven seems odd. Especially if you believe in a prescribed path. That dog didn’t get baptized.

Then we talk about the logical problems of the existence of a Judeo-Christian God. Of which there are many.

But: <i>Lack of evidence has never been a hindrance to belief.</i> Ha! So true!

“…the world behaves exactly as it would if there was no God at all.”

I believe this heartily.

But there are some really, really big problems with this book. First of all, it conflates the belief in the Judeo-Christian God with a belief in the possible existence of a being greater than humanity. They complain that agnostics are illogical to say they don’t know if there’s a God. <i>It’s a black-and-white issue. There either is a God or there isn’t.</i> This simple sentence is so fraught with problems, I don’t know where to begin. With this one statement, the authors are suggesting that the limited view that fundamentalist Christians hold of a miracle-working, prayer-answering, angry old man in the sky is the same as holding out the possibility that there is something in this universe beyond us. You don’t have to believe in the possibility of something beyond our experience, but to say everyone who believes there might be something more than what we experience is wrong and stupid seems to be the height of arrogance - and stupidity. This is where the condescension and arrogance ruins a book like this. I get that this book is <i><b>A lighthearted look at why God does not exist</b></i>. And sure, make fun of some of the stupid reasons people give for believing in God. But in the end, the <i>only</i> point to a book like this is to make fun of people. There’s nothing new here - no new ideas. There’s not even much of a new presentation to them. It’s feels like someone got up one day and said, “I think people who believe in God are stupid. I’m going to write a book about it so everyone <b>knows</b> that I think people who believe in God are stupid.” The arguments in this book have merit. But they’ve all been discussed before. This book doesn’t move the discussion forward at all. In fact, it moves it backwards by suggesting that both people who believe in God, and people who say they don’t know if there is a God are <b>both</b> stupid. It ends up being just as arrogant as all the Christians who say people who <b>don’t</b> believe in God and people who say they don’t know if there is a God are <b>both</b> stupid.

So, yeah, maybe 3 stars for the humorous way they present the stuff. But I’m dropping that to one for re-hashing a bunch of already existence arguments and then saying “everyone who doesn’t agree with me is stupid”.

Ive read two controversial books back to back. This one focuses on God not existing. Sutter has some good theories here, but for the most part there's not much depth to them. Really this reads more like a speech than a book. Illustrations are simple, personally I hoped for more humor in this book.