Upon further reflection, I've narrowed the difficulties I've had with the text down to

I've found that I do enjoy the portions of the book that involve reading portions of the original author's text then Palmer's summary of the text. I like having the freedom to see where he's coming from, so I can agree or disagree based on my own observations. I was pretty mad when I read the portion that summarized Nietzsche's "passional" argument against God's existence. I have read several of Nietzsche's works when my father introduced me to them; I find such a gross simplification misleading, especially in light of how easy Nietzsche is to read!

The other questionable practice I see in the book is how he takes entire theories and sets them as "false". I don't believe in "true" or "false" in philosophy, just as I don't believe that "right" and "wrong" have any part in philosophical practice. Obviously, it follows that if one line of philosophical reasoning was more "right" than all the others, we'd all believe solely in it. We travel down the same path when we start thinking of arguments as less or more "false".

I do, however, like the summaries our professor posts regarding the material. I also greatly appreciate the way our tests are phrased. Questions asking "What argument did the author propose. . ." really helps me keep a perspective that these are merely one person's interpretations of these philosophers' ideas.