My Publications

The Advocatus Atheist

Why are atheists so angry? Do all atheists really just want to lead reckless lives and live in depravity and sin? Also, do atheists support things like abortion and gay rights because they have no moral compass to speak of? Find out the answer to these questions and many more like them in this book! 
Atheism is the world's third largest religious oriented belief after Christianity and Islam respectively, yet so many people seem to have deeply rooted misapprehensions about what atheism is and what it is atheists believe. This book will clear up any confusion there might be about atheism and help people come to a sympathetic appreciation of the atheistic worldview, even if in the end they simply decide to agree to disagree. 
In this book, Tristan Vick - once a Christian and now a skeptic - shares with us selections from his popular writing as an outspoken atheist. Tackling hot-topic and controversial subjects ranging from feminism, to gay rights, marriage equality, abortion, corporal punishment, the freedom of speech, and to what it is atheists actually believe, Tristan Vick shares with us how he views a wide range of subject matter through the eyes of his atheism. 

Although Tristan Vick doesn't speak for all atheists, this is an excellent book to learn how and why one particular atheist sees and thinks about the world the way he does and why atheism, after giving it further consideration, isn't as problematic as so many seem to think.

Coming Soon! 

(E-book available now!)

(Print April 7th, 2015 - tentative)

The Swedish Fish

Ever wonder if there was compelling proof for the existence of God? If so, what would it look like and how would it be presented? Do you believe Christianity is true or do you take the skeptical view that all religions are man-made? What does human consciousness have to do with God? What's the difference between agnosticism and atheism? How does culture and the way we are raised impact our religious and spiritual beliefs? 

Best selling author and skeptic Tristan Vick covers a full range of subjects from philosophy to psychology to sociology, history, and science as he considers the the arguments for the existence of God, belief in the historical Jesus, and whether there is life after death. Then one by one he systematically deconstructs the arguments of contemporary Christian apologist Randal Rauser and offers a worthy critique from a different school of thought. Christians and nonbelievers alike will find more than enough to chew on in this book, and maybe even a lot to agree on as well. 

Beyond an Absence of Faith

Walking away from faith is never an easy journey. Leaving god and religion behind can be a challenging experience, sometimes even a painful one. Individuals have to consider the impact on family, friends, jobs, and many other aspects of life. This anthology consists of sixteen personal stories by people, from all walks of life, who have made the journey from a life steeped in religion to a life without it. In sharing these heartfelt stories with others, we hope to give those who have questions, who may be on the fence, or who have recently gone through similar experiences a sign that they are not alone. Within these pages you will find hope and inspiration, and perhaps a better understanding of what it means to take brave strides toward living a life without god and religion. 

“Beyond an Absence of Faith has the potential to reach those powerful social dimensions of the believer’s mind, while at the same time comforting those who have recently suffered the social and psychological agony of leaving their religions.” 

— Michael Sherlock, author of I Am Christ: The Crucifixion–Painful Truths 

“A beautiful and highly recommended collection of very moving accounts...”

— James A. Lindsay, author of Dot, Dot, Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly

What if the question “Does God exist?” proved to be meaningless? What if the very definition of “God” was incoherent? Could you still, in good conscience, believe in something if it was incoherent and meaningless? Would it even be possible to talk about an incoherent and meaningless thing meaningfully? If not, then what consequences would follow from this realization?

These are the questions which the branch of philosophy known as ignosticism concerns itself with. Ignosticism: A Philosophical Justification for Atheism examines these questions and delves into the idea that “God” is a type of language-game.

Taking a Wittgensteinian view of language, Tristan Vick takes us on a journey from learning theory to semantics to psychology in this philosophical exploration of whether or not the idea of God holds any relevant meaning. Perhaps more controversial still, Vick makes the case that ignosticism, properly understood, can be used as a positive justification for the reasonableness of atheism.

Reason Against Blasphemy collects two important works on blasphemy by two of our greatest Freethinkers. This volume includes both G.W. Foote's memoir "Prisoner for Blasphemy" and Robert G. Ingersoll's defense at the "Trial of C.B. Reynolds" along with two related lectures by Ingersoll on "Blasphemy" and "individuality."

Seasons of Freethought brings the Freethought publications of G.W. Foote together in one collected volume. For the first time in print, you can enjoy Arrows of Freethought and Flowers of Freethought in two volumes. As founder of the Freethought magazine called the "Freethinker," Foote used the power of the pen to slay the imaginary beasts of human superstition. His witty criticism of religious intolerance, injustice, and hypocrisy prevalent in his day is mirrored by the secular revival of the New Atheist movement today.

This collection is a must own for anyone who feels fed up with religious intolerance or is growing disillusioned with their own religious faith. G.W. Foote was a great defender of reason, rationality, and the Freethought cause. A perfect book for sharing the secular worldview and for starting conversations about what it means to be a nonbeliever. Edited and revised for a modern readership, this affordable anthology is for a new generation of Freethinkers.


  1. I'd just like to comment on your "Bible Contradictions" page. On the very first one, you said that, "Matthew 1:17 list fourteen..." I read Matthew 1:17 and it doesn't list any of them. And in Matthew 1:2, there's 14 listed right?: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, and David.

    1. That was a typo. Thanks for the catch. I will amend it asap.

  2. In your second contradiction you are making several assumptions: 1) That all of Jesus' sayings were written down. That could hardly be true. 2) There was no New Testament when Paul was speaking to the people. So how could you make a claim regarding his truthfulness?

    1. It seems besides the point. But if Socrates', Plato's, and Confucius' writings were written down, does it not raise a valid question as to the missing source material of Jesus?

  3. In your third contradiction, you made another incorrect assumption. Paul didn't know he was writing Scripture. Thus, when 1st Tim says that "all SCripture," it was, at that time, referring to the Old Testament. Then you turned your rebuttal from being against Scripture do being against Christians. Therefore, contradiction number three is invalid.

    1. It is irrelevant whether or not Paul *knew he was writing scripture. The objection stands.

  4. In contradiction number 4, you evidently forgot to read all of 1st Corinthians 1. Paul just said he baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. Perhaps a contextual reading would enable you to defend your allegations claiming so many "contradictions and discrepancies." I'm sure I could read any of your works and pick apart your ideas. For example, in the above book preface you claim that, "Could you still, in good conscience..." believe that such-and-such. You can't answer what conscience and energy is. You can see what it does, but you cannot tell us what it is. At least, at the University of Oxford, 400 physicists could not tell a mathematician what energy is. Does that warrant disbelieve? Of course not.

    1. Actually, Paul's actions still contradict Jesus' command not to baptize but merely to preach.

      You have to read into the context too much to get around it and say, well, Paul was simply following his Christian right to baptize on a personal basis. But what prevents Paul from going onto the next house and baptizing. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. We cannot know for certain.

      It's all a conjecture after the facts. The fact is, the contradiction of actions remains.

    2. Mr. Vick:

      First of all I understand you, your arguments are not uncommon. Out of curiosity, is your work stimulated by the desire to know the truth, existentially speaking? It seems that to question the validity of the notion of "God's" existence inevitably prerequisites the collapse of any belief of truth at all. If one doesn't believe that true or false exists, then what is existence altogether? I would like for you to get to yourself, slow down and honestly ask yourself, Do I really believe that I am a worthless, bastardized being and that when my body dies I will simply cease to exist? (Pardon me if I have assumed the idea that you do not believe in any afterlife). I want to tell you my dear friend that you are not a worthless, bastardized being and that you have a Creator that loves you and cares enough for His creation as to not leave it wandering with no purpose or definition. Please don't take me wrong, I am not being sarcastic nor do I feel any condemnation for you. I am honestly grieved and saddened by this lie that I myself almost fell prey to believing at one point in life. I appreciate your quest for truth, I myself am alongside you in that desire except I have found it. Audacious statement some may say, but I know that I have a Father that loves me and cares deeply about the condition of His creation. The Kingdom of Heaven is like a treasure which a man stumbles across in the dessert. Once he finds it, he buries it far underneath the earth, returns to his home and sells everything that he has in order to purchase the plot of land where the treasure was found. All of his neighbors and family think that he is crazy because he spends his entire life's earnings on what appears to be a dry wilderness. So it is for everyone that enters into the Kingdom of Heaven. I may never speak with you again or make any other comment on your page but I hope to see you there, you are not forsaken my friend. Excuse the imperfection of speech and semantics, I hope that my heart will communicate with yours.


    3. You asked:

      “First of all I understand you, your arguments are not uncommon. Out of curiosity, is your work stimulated by the desire to know the truth, existentially speaking?”

      Yes, in part. It’s partially an innate desire to know the truth of things, but it’s also more about using reason pragmatically. I don’t think we can be given a gift as special as the ability to have consciousness and reason and then not use it.

      And when I strive toward a more logical, more consistent view of the universe, God shrinks away to nothing.

      Other people have differing opinions on the nuanced philosophical questions, but this is good. Anything that challenges the status quo gives us more things to reason through and can, in the long run, strengthen our reasoning skills.

      Secondly, you mentioned:

      “It seems that to question the validity of the notion of "God's" existence inevitably prerequisites the collapse of any belief of truth at all.”

      Why would the non-theistic or agnostic worldview presuppose nihilism?

      I don’t think that’s accurate.

      I don’t believe any metaphysical assumption is necessary regarding truth apart from perhaps our ability to decipher it. More specifically, if there is anything such as an objective, ultimate truth, I think we would more than likely come to it by logic and reason regardless of whether or not God exists.

      You went on to say that

      “If one doesn't believe that true or false exists, then what is existence altogether?”

      Well, ultimate truths and the fact of existence are different questions. I don’t know what you’re trying to ask here. But they are unrelated, for the most part.

    4. “I would like for you to get to yourself, slow down and honestly ask yourself, Do I really believe that I am a worthless, bastardized being and that when my body dies I will simply cease to exist?”

      Well, I’m not a bastard because I know who my father was. But, yes, when we die we join back into the cosmos just as the wave of the ocean – which has shape, form, and function – one day ceases to exist and joins the great vast ocean.

      If that thought scares you, think of it like this. You will feel and sense everything as you would before you were ever conceived by your parents. That is – the nothingness of pre-existence and the nothingness of a post-existence are two sides of the same coin. It is only that brief flash of existence that is the coin’s thinly lit edge where we experience all life and existence. And then, in a flash, it’s gone again. But we won’t know it beyond the memories we leave behind. I can only imagine it is as peaceful and calm after death as it is before life.

      “(Pardon me if I have assumed the idea that you do not believe in any afterlife).”

      No, you are correct. I don’t believe in any afterlife of the metaphysical or supernatural variety. So, that is an accurate assumption.

      “I want to tell you my dear friend that you are not a worthless, bastardized being and that you have a Creator that loves you and cares enough for His creation as to not leave it wandering with no purpose or definition.”

      This is false. I’ve been presented with no evidence for the thing you speak of. How can something that doesn’t exist be capable of love? And, moreover, even if it should exist, how would you know personally that such a being loves me specifically? I think you are falling into the trap of assuming more than you technically can given the state of the evidence and the fact that the question of such a beings existence remains entirely unanswered.

      The rest of your comments read as hollow preaching (no offense). But apologetic talk is often a trained response and doesn’t show or demonstrate original thinking so much as it just parrots commonly shared views among the like-minded. It’s fine to have community and feel a part of something bigger than yourself, but please realize, not everybody wants that. Sometimes, people just like to be lonely monks living on a mountain top meditating and living a peaceful life of nature and serenity.

      I hope I answered your questions adequately. Sorry it too me so long to reply. I don’t discuss religion much any more these days. I sort of got bored with it.

      But I wish you well on your own journey for truth and the answers. I’m content that I’ve found most of the answers I’m looking for, although the pursuit of better reasoning and more logical thinking is always an ongoing endeavor. As is the pursuit of self-improvement, mindfulness, and finding an inner peace.


      The Advocatus Atheist

  5. In your 5th contradiction, you seem to think if one biographer tells about an event and another biographer does not tell about an event that that warrants a "contradiction." I'm pretty sure if I asked your mom and dad to write a biography about you, there would be events that your mom would mention that your dad would not mention. Thus, to say your mom or dads biography has "contradiction" is dishonest. And selecting which New Testament criticisms that warrant your atheistic agenda and ideas is called dogma--the same dogma I'm sure you're against in the religious community.

    1. It's more of a case when a biographer tells the SAME event but leaves out a VITAL element which he should not have omitted under any circumstances which, may not be a contradiction, but CERTAINLY is a discrepancy worth raising a few red flags.

  6. In contradiction number 6, the words "first sermon" don't appear in the texts you mentioned. Where does it say that it was His "first sermon?" Can't Jesus preach the same message twice in different locations anyway? So, how again is your evidence a "contraction?" So far, you're 0 for 6. Most scientists and mathematicians would suggest your hypothesis that the Bible is full of contradictions and discrepancies is false.

  7. Because biblical chronology is messed up, we have to assume that the order here matters.

    You're right however that we cannot be certain as to whether or not it came first. We could let the chronology slide, since there is no actual way to prove it.

    But the problem is not mine. You have to prove that it was NOT the first. The *assumption that is was not the first not withstanding.

    Otherwise it may very well be a REAL contradiction. You are simply dismissing it based on your desire to believe that the sermon on the mount wasn't his first sermon, but this is just an assumption. One which would need to be VERIFIED for your objection to stand.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Imperfect and Immoral Teachings of Jesus Christ

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic