Rating: 
Summary: Narrow minded rubbish!
Review: It must be said, there's something deeply amiss with Smith's philosophies and conclusions in this book. One of Smith's favourite tricks is to compare belief in God with belief in elves or Santa Claus. He tries to refute Theist's arguments for believing in God by saying that atheists cannot 'dis-prove' the existence of invisible elves at the bottom of the garden, equally as much as they cannot 'dis-prove' the existence of God. However, having faith in the nature of the Infinite (the ultimate Source and the sustaining reality of being), is very different to having 'faith' in Santa Claus or fairies at the bottom of the garden. Smith strangely asserts that faith is "irrational", when in fact, with regard to the nature of the infinite, we human beings cannot escape appeals for faith. If anyone tries to wriggle out of admitting they have faith (either in believing that we are here by 'accident' and that God does not exist, or that God exists and created the Universe intentionally), then such a person is claiming that they have an infallible knowledge of EVERYTHING. Smith asserts that faith itself is unnecessary and irrational, yet Smith does not have an infallible knowledge of everything. Therefore, Smith's argument against the necessity of faith is futile, arrogant, narrow minded, and it reveals intellectual bankruptcy (not to mention spiritual bankruptcy). And Smith's refutations of the cosmological arguments are simply illogical and dogmatic. He makes statements such as "The Universe, then, has always existed and always will exist", and audaciously asserts that "the existence of God is impossible" and even, as was noted by a previous reviewer, "We may state, with certainty, that God does not exist." (? ) What makes Smith so sure that the Universe has always existed, and that the existence of God is impossible? He has FAITH that the Universe has always existed, even though scientific observations have revealed that his faith is somewhat misguided. There is massive scientific evidence that the Universe indeed had an instant of creation - the Big Bang. Smith also says "There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the natural universe is in any way dependant upon some supernatural agency." But there is, in fact, every bit of evidence. Scientific evidence has revealed that not only did an unprecedented amount of physical energy appear from 'somewhere', but it all started obeying deeply profound and mathematical laws. Consider the following mathematical statement: 2 + 2 = 4. This statement is a mental construct. It is an 'idea' that transcends any kind of physical construct, yet 2 + 2 = 4 is a 'mathematical fact'. On the level of any kind of 'materialism', the mathematical fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is meaningless. But mathematics has become 'incarnate' in our cosmos (i.e. atoms exist which are governed by laws which exhibit mathematics - see the 'inverse square law of gravity' which enables scientists to predict solar eclipses, to the minute, a millennium in advance). The best place for 'mathematical ideas' to exist before our Universe existed, would be in the mind of God. Theists assert that an intelligent mathematician (God) authored these laws and gave them the opportunity to become incarnate. So with regard to the mathematical laws grounded within our cosmos, and conscious beings who can orient themselves to the pursuit of truth, beauty and goodness, and who can experience intrinsic value, friendship, love and spiritual creativity, (all of which exists, rather than nothing at all), it is clear that it is VERY HIGHLY PROBABLE that the source of our Universe possessed intelligence, power and Good intentions - let alone Smith's warped assertion that it is "impossible". Smith then asserts that the existence of suffering "disproves" the existence of an omnipotent Being. But this is clearly false. Just consider the nature of love. An infinite Love cannot manipulate the beloved, which means equally as much as God cannot create square circles, He also cannot prevent 'pain' from being a consequence of self-giving love. Indeed, God's omnipotence is understood from the Christian perspective as God's capacity to enter into love with all its costs. (A 'self-limiting', or a divine 'self-giving', attribute to God is central to the Christian faith). In short, an opposing evil force is the inevitable consequence of the Infinite Love, and according to many Theistic faiths, this force manifested itself as Satan. With regard to the Christian faith, Smith focuses on extreme fundamentalism and unsurprisingly finds numerous ways of undermining it. But Smith seems oblivious to the fact that there is more to Christianity than fundamentalist dogma, Biblical literalism and spiritually bankrupt regulations. There is a heart to Christianity - and a Spirit. It is THAT which is essential to Christianity, and it is THAT which George H. Smith has completely failed to undermine. This book is grounded in fallacies, arrogance, narrow mindedness and warped logic. Yet according to a previous reviewer, this is the best book available on Atheism. Well, well, well.
Rating:
Summary: Logical and rational?
Review: Hmmm. What do we have here? A rational book? On page 17, our friend George H. Smith asserts that "the existence of God is impossible." Later, on page 61, he says "We may state, with certainty, that God does not exist." Here we have a man, who many people believe to be rational and logical, asserting that he knows the answers to the eternal philosophical questions - that "God does not exist". I think it's time we sent Mister Smith to the loony bin. Open your minds please.
Rating: 
Summary: Best Work on Atheism
Review: If you are looking for a solid, clear, rational exposition of atheism, look no further. Smith presents atheism forcefully and consistently throughout the work. All of the common, and even many of the uncommon, theistic, as well as agnostic arguments are dealt with ably. Smith's work is especially valuable because of the Objectivist insights that he brings to the work. Unlike many other atheist philosophers, Smith's thought is grounded in a systematic, objective theory of epistemology as well as metaphysics. His Objectivist leanings are even more evident when he delves into the issue of atheistic ethics. I find this particularly important because of the fact that atheism, in itself, does not represent much of anything if it is not placed within the context of a broader philosophy of reason. I am constantly upset by atheists who uphold the value of reason and objectivity far enough to reject theism, but at the same time employ some form or the other of skepticism or subjectivism in the rest of their philosophy. Despite this, the prominence of Smith's work is in a way reassuring, as he does not present atheism out of its proper context. I can only hope that people take all of his ideas seriously.
Rating:
Summary: It is the best book on Atheism that I have read!
Review: He uses great examples to justify his point of view, and he brings up great observations about the gospels. There are the occasional jumps that he doesn't completely justify, but they are very little of them. If you want to learn about Atheism, this is the book for you.
Rating: 
Summary: not very interesting
Review: Basically, in this book George H. Smith promotes a "strong" form of atheism, i.e. he claims it is impossible that God can exist. Well, I don't believe God exists, but I do think it's possible some kind of God exists, if not, perhaps, the strawman Christian God that Smith pounds away at with semantic games and some rather shabby argumentation (not to say, of course, that I think he's wrong, just that he argued poorly). But Smith furthermore claims that belief in God makes such things as morality and science logically indefensible. I've read this argument before, and I have yet to understand how anyone could take it seriously. The fact is, with the _possible_ exception of Catholics, theists overall do not commit more crimes than nontheists; if you exclude Catholics (though this may be a matter of racial issues, I admit), perhaps they on average commit fewer crimes, in fact. Period. End of story. The praxis of it is there. Smith's airy fairy games are thus rendered irrelevant. The slippery slope argument employed (if you believe in something irrational like God, you have no basis for rationality at all) is ridiculous and boring, and is the exact equivalent of the theist's specious argument that the atheist has no foundation for morality. Lots of people will always believe in God -- I no longer harbor any illusions about an enlightened future when more than 10% of the world will believe otherwise. But I also no longer think the world would be much better even if that did come to pass. Anyone who still agrees with Smith's overall message, perhaps, should wake up, too. Thoughtful theists will always find a reason to believe in God, because they really do need to. Books like Smith's only aggravate the less thoughtful. (P.S.: And let's not forget his failure to mention once the concept of deism, but that's another story.)
Rating:
Summary: Thanks George Smith for a great book
Review: I read this book, for the most part, where I work. This morning I got permission to put an "Atheist" book at a the headquarters fire station since those of religion have their bibles there already. I would like to do more to promote Atheism in the way that Christians force their religion on US (and other countries) citizens. I don't suppose Christians would allow that though. I am off to buy a copy for the fire station.......
Rating:
Summary: This book changed my life! Honestly
Review: I read the book and decided to post a review. After reading through the many other reviews given, It became apparent that this book was either refuted by theists, or appraised by atheists. Well, here's my story. I grew up 17 years of my life as a catholic. My family goes to church every Sunday, and I was living a fairly simple life believing in god -- content that I would finish a happy life and move on to heaven. In these years I didn't run into many atheists, so I really had no reason NOT to believe in god, because there were basically no arguments against god. This all changed when I read this book 3 years ago. (I didn't purchase it on Amazon, but since then I did lose it and was thinking about purchasing it again) I understand why the theist claims that faith is not merely limited to a belief in god, it entails the very nature of human thought so to speak. I too, thought the same thing, I would use faith in many ways other than believing in god. I would hope that I would not strike out when I was at the plate, I would pray that some day I would be just like my dad, I would beg for forgiveness if, let's say, robbed a cookie from the cookie jar and got caught. I would do all of this and not really even recognize god as the decision maker as to how any of these scenarios would result. While this kind of faith is taken from a younger point of view, it still carries today in different forms. We all want to know why we are here, not just us humans on earth, but the planets and stars and the universe as well. The theistic approach? God is why we are here. God is eternal and we are not, right? Hmmmmm... It is an acceptable answer to some extent, but really doesn't explain how or why we are here. After all, if that is the answer and it is proven, then I will still be at the same standpoint asking this question: How and why is god here? So we can't really deem god as the answer to the universe, nor can we conclude that the universe or god, if either, is eternal. This cause/effect argument for god gets us nowhere. Another thing, theists commonly position the athiests to do the explaining, while they sit back and conclude that their arguments go beyond reason with faith. In a sense, their arguments are superior, because reason itself is limited to experience and cannot reach the realm of supernatural understanding. I don't know about everyone, but I myself cannot understand the benefits of believing anything other than reason when concluding truth. Yes, I may not be able to believe in a supernatural being, but the only thing I'm really going to miss out on is heaven, right? Heaven, hmmmmmm.... all I have to say is think about it a little more than what you've heard. Most will think of it as a place of omnihappiness (that word coined by me just now) without giving it much thought. But think about it this way, what is happiness to us? Is it having a good wife? Is it having money? Is it believing in god? Is it finding the answers? What does heaven offer that we can't find down here on earth? I expect to hear such answers as: heaven doesn't have crime, violence, murder, cheating, ect. But why does god only disclude such negative things in heaven? why not just disclude such things as those down here on earth? And hell? Well, equally the same. Why is the devil even around? Can't god with his omnipotent powers destroy the devil? I know that is a fairly childish argument, but think about it. Theists will claim such proposterous and far streched ideas that are stated in the bible like: the devil was one of god's deciphals that turned on him. Well, how can you turn on an omniscient being that created you? If you are a being that created everything even your deciphels, couldn't you create one that wouldn't turn against you? George H Smith will show you things you never thought of before. And believe me, as you get older, you don't always get smarter, but you USUALLY get more ignorant to views that oppose yours. I was lucky to establish a basis for atheism at such young of an age. I try to bring up my viewpoints to my parents and they won't even listen, almost like they are disgusted with my thoughts. This is why I think religion is NOT all good and there ARE reasons not to believe in it. Have a good one.
Rating:
Summary: Huh?
Review: A reviewer says it's "unbelievable" that "two reviewers awarded [this] book one star, because they genuinely thought it was it was a poorly written book." He alleges that those two reviewers "subscribe" to "religious hysteria" and suggests that this book's "question[ing of] something so near and dear to their hearts" somehow "evokes staggering emotionally driven paranoia." He says their "defensive tone" is somehow "evidence of the fickleness of their beliefs." I'm unimpressed. The two one-star reviews this moron is attacking are neither hysterical nor paranoid; they do not attack either the author or the other reviewers; their tone is not defensive at all; they present reasons for their beliefs and arguments in support of their opinions. All very unlike the sophomoric reviewer who is pouncing on them for no apparent reason other than that they believe in God. As far as I can tell, their theistic beliefs just _bug_ him. If I had to go by tone alone, I would distance myself as rapidly and as far as possible from Five-Star Charlie and align myself with the theists below. Maybe the defenders of this book ought to stick to defending the book. But I suppose it's easier to poke childish fun at figures of speech like "reading with an open heart."
Rating: 
Summary: Great, not-too-technical, introduction to atheism.
Review: As an introduction to atheistic philosophy this book is very good. It tries to use nontechnical language and examples to justify it's positions. It deals with the flaws of theism in general and in Christianity in particular. It has a lot to say about the meaning of revelations, faith as a method to knowledge, miracles and more. It deals with some of the "proofs" of the existance of god(s) and undermines them quiet nicely. Any serious reader, atheist or theist, must recognize this as a clearcut and good introduction to atheism.
Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Read
Review: It's unbelievable that the last two reviewers awarded the book one star, because they genuinely thought it was it was a poorly written book. Far from it, Atheism : The Case Against God is nothing more than a well written book, which challenges the religious hysteria which the same reviewers subscribe to. The truth is that this book questions something so near and dear to their hearts that any mere suggestion that there is no God evokes staggering emotionally driven paranoia. The defensive tone of the negative reviewers alone, is evidence of the fickleness of their beliefs. We are told to cast emotion aside and read the Bible with an open mind and an open heart (kinda difficult if you're not subject to cardiac surgery while reading the Good Book!), yet it seems like such an impossible task for the same people to read Atheism : The Case Against God in a like manner. So... If you're going to read it, please try. I guess the one star reviews simply demonstrate more persecution by the religious to anyone who chooses to believe otherwise. Amen.
| 
