The book in question.
This is a debate between a sick man and a man who has been cured. The sick man suffers from delusions which prevent him from assessing his own problems. The man who has been cured was once sick himself, so he easily recognizes the delusions of the sick man. He wants to help him, but try as he might, his words are swept away by the sick man who only sees the reasons that can dance with his delusions. The Christian reader will instantly recognize that the sick man is the atheist. Poor soul, he is like a lost sheep and need only recant and return to the flock to be cured. The atheist reader will instantly recognize that the cured man is the atheist. Poor soul, through strength of reason alone he has broken rank with the sick masses and endured their irrational condemnations. The atheist is one of a very few that knows the truth -- that an idea does not gain truth as it gains followers.
The Christian presents some devastating arguments, such as the two tenets of atheism (1. There is no God, and 2. I hate Him), and that atheists have no warrant to define good and evil and thus cannot define good and evil. These arguments are, of course, devastating to the Christian's position, when they are meant to be an attack against atheism. The atheist correctly ignores the first argument, as its absurdity is self-evident. For the second, he points out that morality is a product of evolution, something that evolutionary scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins so eloquently and thoroughly explained in chapter 12 of his book The Selfish Gene some 20 years ago.
There's more, but in a nutshell, half the book is the refreshing voice of reason, and the other half consists of the delusions of a madman. Which half is which will depend on the reader's orientation.