Rating: 
Summary: This book is a good introduction to atheism.
Review: In my opinion, this book provides a good introduction to atheism and related philosophical issues. The hostile-sounding title might put some people off, but Smith makes it clear in the first section of his book that the primary focus of the book is whether or not theistic claims should be accepted as true. If one can show that theistic belief if flawed (the case against god), then one supports atheism.Smith then proceeds to do just that for the remainder of his book. He covers basic and important subjects such as god concepts, faith, morality, and common arguments for god. Smith argues that no rational person can accept theism as true and he discusses the philosophical problems of many theistic arguments. Smith writes in a non-technical style, and this may be why the book is popular. I think Smith's book could serve as a good starting point for approaching more thorough and technical books on atheism. Smith spends much of the book analyzing Christianity, and I would have preferred it if he spent more time looking at theism in general. Throughout the book, he describes major flaws in Christianity, and after awhile it appears as though he's just whipping a dead horse. Of course, it's a dead horse that many people insist on riding, so I suppose that critiquing it from several perspectives may help to convince some of the riders that they're not going anywhere on that beast. If you are a philosophical layperson who wants to learn more about atheism, then this is the book you should read. Now, if I may digress, it appears that some of the reviews posted before mine do not really review the book at all. Instead, they provide theistic arguments that supposedly refute the arguments that Smith makes in his book. It is interesting to note that the theistic arguments offered below are actually covered in Smith's book, where he shows them to be flawed. It makes me wonder if some of those reviewers actually read or understood the book.
Rating:
Summary: Very nice introduction on Atheism and logic.
Review: A mind expanding and insightful look into Atheism. Mr. Smith's arguments are clear and logical. The author often includes the opposition's opinions and counters to his arguments and brings them to conclusions. In only a few cases, the other side is not fully explored. This may have to do more with the purpose of the book than anything else. It is not intended as an all encompassing tome on Atheism. I am convinced that the book could have been much, much longer. Mr. Smith keeps the length of the book manageable. This book will make you use your brain! The only negative aspects are that the book was sometimes a bit dry. It was also one of the most difficult books for me to read. This was because I found myself thinking over all of the issues and drifting out of the book! It is not a book you can read cover to cover as a novel. You are forced to think. Thanks Mr. Smith. Nice job.
Rating: 
Summary: Horrible Book with nothing new to offer
Review: I was hoping this book would provide me with new insight into atheism, but found myself very disappointed. However the author is knowledgable about the subject and demonstrates his position well.
His examination of bible passages was out of sorts with common Christian theology which he must regard to prove his point. The author falled to understand that faith and reason are not divorced from each other. He implies that Christians operate on faith alone which is simply not true. Faith has two sides;one, is that a believer put trust into the object of his/her belief and second, faith is a supernatural event given by god.
His first attempt to dispute god by defining the word "god" away is simply silly nonsense. The point is that the word "god" has meaning and content. The point is that believers know it and use it and understand it. The author should spend less time devoted to redefining words and more time in critical thought.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent, very "in depth", a systematic analysis.
Review: This book was the first one I have read concerning atheism and the existence of God, and I have to say, it was an excellent and thought provoking read. I've been an agnostic for 2 years now, and because of this book I have been persuaded to become an atheist completely. This book, while technical and philosophical in many parts, is quite easy to understand. It uses a simple and logical format which systematically attacks the theistic beleif of god, and it makes perfect sense. This book is bulletproof in it's reasoning and is therefore an excellent debating aid as well as practical guide to why the atheist disbeleives in a god. George Smith, the author, includes not only his own reason and logic, but the ideas and philosophies of many prominent atheists.
Smith also includes suppositions and philosophies of many prominent theologians and apologetics, and after stating them, he explains why they cannot possibly lie within the realm of reason or logic. This book belongs on any atheist's bookshelf. If you want to read a truly remarkable analysis of theism from the atheist viewpoint, I highly reccomend this book.
Rating:
Summary: Phenomenal...a must read if you care about the God debate
Review: Mr. Smith does an excellent job making the case for atheism in an easy-to-read book. He seems to be extremely well read on the subject of the existence of God (as evidenced by his many quotations and cites). He does a great job of presenting almost every atheistic argument conceivable and as well as providing theistic responses to almost every argument and then refuting them. I found myself thinking counter-arguments only to find them answered in the next paragraph. Mr. Smith's logic is sound and objections to it are practically non-existent. Although the book does get a little dry when Smith begins to talk about ethics, overall the reading is interesting and fascinating. The book does seem to end in on an odd note (he just stops writing after critizing the ethics of Jesus) and a conclusion would provide a fitting end to his very well-structured work. If you belong to any theistic religion, after reading this work be prepared to seriously rethink your beliefs--this book could very well change your life.
Rating:
Summary: A response
Review: Aren't we wasting our breath here? As has been said in other reviews, in the face of the 'the Infinite', all conclusive logic and intellectual scopes necessarily break down. It is true that this book shoots down fundamentalist concepts of God, and interprets religion through a very narrow scope. But by definition, the INFINITE is not narrow. Theism will always be able to rise above these arguments. Many of our religious concepts and tales are deliberately portrayed as child-like imagery and metaphorical statements, in order to reflect deeper truths that cannot be wholly contained in a finite mind. To interpret these tales and concepts through a 'literal lens', as writers like Smith so often insist upon doing, is to miss the deeper meaning of our religious convictions. Whatever we believe about ultimate issues of existence, as long as we find inner peace through it, all is well. Isn't authentic inner peace what we're all searching for? This is why there really is no "burden of proof" for a religionist. Inner peace and spiritual liberation is by no means a burden. We're all on a personal journey, here to discover the Truth for ourselves. Let each soul walk its path. Overall, whether we believe that there is transcendent, overarching purpose to the cosmos (i.e. the theistic stance), or whether we believe that there is no intrinsic purpose to anything, (i.e. the atheistic stance), - it's all a matter of faith. If we possess no faith or belief at all, regarding ultimate issues of existence, then we are agnostic. Period. The only way to possess a faith-free understanding is to have an infallible knowledge of everything, which is an attribute given only to God.
Rating:
Summary: boring
Review: books like this are too shallow. They hold as much weight against Gods existence as a religious fundamentalist holds for Gods existence. Smith succeeds only on a superficial level. His case against God is really a straw man. A religious person, like humility, has nothing to prove.
Rating:
Summary: My review of Banderbe on Sept 2001 (4/4)
Review: "How can...and evil?"
Essence and nature are synonymous. Essence goes hand in hand with existence and the existence of essences can not be denied without contradiction. Regarding consciousness, this reviewer begs the question by assuming consciousness is not a purely natural, material phenomenon. All one can do is simply see that it exists and accept it; they can not attach any theistic presuppositions to it. Regarding justice and evil, this reviwer assumes God decides what is just and moral but this leads back to the divine command/divine privilge approach to ethics I talked about earlier and showed to be problematic. There is no need to repeat myself here. "In short...as well."
Obvious Christian presuppositionalist rhetoric. First of all, Smith is not depending on Christianity for anything. He simply starts with logical axioms and proceeds with his epistemic and metaphysical investigations from there. By claiming that Smith can not make knowledge claims without allegedly depending on Christianity for logical laws, the reviewer could be criticized for begging the question about the origin of logical laws. In fact, I am not even sure they had an origin. A theist may say they did with God, but by saying this, he implicitly affirms the truth of the law of identity even when there was only God and I have explained this further in my review elsewhere. This Christian presuppositionalist labeled Smith a dogmatist yet he was a dogmatist himself. I would be tempted to call that hypocrisy but that would imply Smith actually is a dogmatist in the way the reviewer accused him of, but as is evident, these accuations totally fail. One final point is that throughout his reviw, this reviwer uses the word omniscience as meaning to know everything. Smith shows in his book that this characteristic of having unverified, automatic knowledge is unintelligible and plunges us into agnosticism. Anyway, the omnimax God has been shown by philosophers to be incoherent. Something that is incoherent has no place in a discourse where intelligible things are being spoken of.
Rating:
Summary: My review of Banderbe on Sept 2001 (3/4)
Review: "According to...man's knowledge" (89);
What does he mean when he says all of existence? Even if there was only the universe, there would still be a lot unexplored territory that man would not know about yet. If Smith is willing to amend this line to say that man is capable of ascertaining certain facts of reality, I would be in agreement with him. "The idea...the intellect" (45);
I do not know what Smith means here. Does he mean to say there is nothing we can not know? If he did, he would be a fool. To me, this quote is simply unintelligible and I wish Smith was right beside me so I could ask him what he meant. "We cannot...of being'" (67);
Smith was saying in this section that the characteristics of God were divided into positive and negative theology: What God is and what God is not. Smith pointed out that if God's nature is a blank to man, then he can not list things that are incompatible with his nature. The problem of negative theology as Smith outlined was that it reduces to this: take the context of which you comprehend existence. Now, contradict that and you get God. It's hard for me to imagine an immaterial being because I've only experienced material beings. This is not dogmatism; this is empiricism. Christians do not like it when you throw empiricism in their face and so they whine about it. This reviwer's whining takes the form of labeling Smith dogmatic when he did not even say that absolutely no immaterial being exists. tsk tsk tsk. "How can..have knowledge" (54);
The same glimpse at negative theology as above applies here. Smith is not saying that existence apart from these does not exist. He is saying that we simply can not comprehend them because we have no experience of them. Comprehension of something presupposes experience with it and since we have not experienced what Smith is talking about here on page 54, we can not comprehend them. Again, this is empiricism, not dogmatism. "Theism offers...comprehend reality" (90).
What kind of knowlege from theism can Smith possibly mean? We can look to the Christian presuppositionalists for a clue. The logical laws which they have claimed are contingent on God. Hence if God existed and could overturn them, our context that we comprehend reality in would no longer be stable and we could be drowning in skeptical outlooks. So Smith is right. A thesitc universe where logic can be overturned will be chaotic and unintelligible. If those laws' reversal was actualized somehow, we would not understand or comprehend anything since logical laws and limits are all we know. Returning to negative theology, theists say God is immaterial. But until we comprehend an immaterial being by experiencing it, there is no room for it in the only context with which we understand reality; the naturalistic context. "What more...cannot exist!"
This is a straw man. Smith says that whatever is unintelligible is simply that and therefore can not be meaningfully discussed. "Smith in...of Christianity."
Smith's standard is reason which comprises of the recognization of unreversable logical axioms. These logical axioms do not in principle rule out the falsity of let's say the Resurrection. But it does show that nothing can be 'above' an axiom. "Smith's bravado...very convincing."
Smith's bravado reduces to the assertion that there are undeniable, unreversable axioms that even a fallible person can see. Hence, the bible is not the ultimate epistemological judge. The odd thing is that presuppositionalists often like to claim the bible is inerrant. The only way they can do that is to judge the bible independently by using reason (which contains thse undeniable logical axioms Smith is so fond of) because if they say the bible and God are perfect because the bible says so, they are begging the question. Again, further proof that the logical laws which fallible humans have made note of in their discourse are undeniable and unescapable even for the Christian persuppositionalist. "Smith has...competing Absolutes."
He did. And he proved himself. But apparently, this reviewer missed it. "Which Absolute...indeed have."
Yes we are not left with any faith commitments. However, this reviewer wants to pass off Smith's commitment to logical laws as a dogmatic faith commitment; as I have shown above, holding to them is not a faith commitment since they are axiomatic. "The Christian...own standards."
And he is wrong. The axiomatic logical laws are necessarily true. "Smith's atheism...and ethics."
Not really. It's the commitment to reason and the laws of logic which enable us to attain knowledge. So to claim that logical laws can even be destroyed when they are obviously necessarily true is absurd. "For example..at all."
He did but the reviewer either missed it or is ignoring what he read. There is nothing else to appeal to anyway. "How does...and immaterial?"
Translation: 1. Smith is an atheist. 2. Atheists do not believe in an immaterial God. 3. Smith is a pure materialist.
This is a non-sequitor. Not only that, it is embarrassing. Atheists obviously can not be pure materialists. They believe in the existence of languages and concepts and shapes for example. If doing so was a logical contradiction, it would not be possible; and yet there it is. "How is...not omniscient?"
Much of these generalizations were already discussed. I showed one does not need to be omniscient to know them. more to come...
Rating:
Summary: My review of Banderbe on Sept 2001 (2/4)
Review: "There is...finite standards."
Here we get a hint of Christian presuppositionalism. Simply put, logic and ethics are contingent on God; he decides what they are. First, let's examine logical laws. Smith pointed out that these were the law of identity, the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction. If the law of identity and it's two corrolaries are contingent on God, then that means that are not necessarily true and that he can reverse them. In other words, he can make the capital of Saskatchean Regina and not Regina at the same time. However this is absurd. At this point, I will be accused of having my own presuppositions and that I can not condemn the Christian presuppostitionalist for having his. However, this accusation would be foolish; how can the law of identity and its two correlaries be reversed? The answer is they can't. The Christian by saying God existed before logical laws simply affirms the truth of the logical laws: Before the universe existed, God was god and not something else (identity); God was creating and therefore not also not creating at the same instance (law of non-contradiction). Of course the theist can say that they do not apply to God since these laws only make sense with several things and it can't when there's only God. However, Christians have their God as omniscient and hence he knew what he was going to create. He had concepts and ideas of people and other things that he was about to create; hence he was distinguishable and seperate from the upcoming universe and his thoughts of it. Therefore, the Christian by claiming God is omniscient, shoots himself in the foot when trying to claim the law of identity did not apply to God pre-creation.
Regarding ethics, Christians like to claim there are morally objective judgements that are true or false. This reviewer would have us believe that humans must obey these rules but God does not have to. In others words this approach to ethics is a combination of divine command and divine privilege. Christians grant that humans are agents and have free will and this is why we are subject to moral praise and moral condemnation for our actions. Since Christians also believe that we are made in God's image and likeness (Genesis), that means God is an agent with free will as well. So since humans are subject to moral rules based on being agents with free will, God must be as well since he is an agent with free will. Christians claim that humans can not say something is right or wrong just because they say so and yet this is exactly what they say God can do thereby making morals applying to all humans. Christians are basically saying that some free moral agents have to obey while other free agents do not. They reserve a special privilege for God; might makes right. They deny this might is right theory for humans yet reserve it for God. The inconsistency is too blatant to ignore; but this reviewer and other Christians have somehow found a way. Actually, they see the inconsistency but ignore it. Tsk tsk tsk. "If there...of appeal."
So because the theist has a book about a God, and he defines God as being all perfect and all absolute, that means that anything out of the bible is automatically true? Sorry but that doesn't fly. This type of linguistic trickery did not work with the ontological argument and does not work here. "The atheist...of appeal."
What is the atheist's absolute? They are the laws of logic which were discussed previously. But as is proven, logical laws are axiomatic and can not be reversed. It's not that the atheist won't allow anything to surpass this standard. It's that he does not have the ability. These logical laws are necessarily true and can not be consistently denied. To deny them is to affirm them. Christian presuppositionalists need to realize this and stop their whining because whining is of no philosophical help. "The ultimate...'against reason.'"
Given that the logical laws are axiomatic and necessarily true, is it any wonder that Smith is committed to them. The fact is, he has no choice. They are basic, obvious facts of reality. Just because finite creatures like humans discover their truth and make note of it in their discourse, it does not make the laws fallible and increase the likelihood of them being overturned. No matter how intelligent a person is, they can not overturn an axiom. "Smith is...atheistic dogmatism"
Sure. It'll be a nice break from this reviewer's Christian dogmatism. "We obviously...are intelligible" (61);
Oh my gosh, will you look at this dogmatism. Smith is actually saying that we can not accept something uncritically and that we must examine it. This line is deliberately thrown in by the reviwer in a feeble attempt to paint Smith as dogmatic. It's a good thing he didn't submit the following sentence because the reviewer would be exposed for a kook. Smith said in the next sentence that we must know what we are talking about when engaged in a philosophical discussion because we do not learn anything when we are told a 'blark' exists if we do not know what a blark is. more to come...
| 
