Rating: 
Summary: Weak objections, poorly written
Review: I opened this book hoping to find logically secular explainations for Christianity. Instead I was utterly disappointed.
Many (if not all) of his objections ("sins of Christianity") are either easily refutable or just plain unintelligent.
It seems that he doesn't really understand Christianity.
Perhaps he would be intrested in actually talking with a theologen (or reading Bonfieffer) since his objections to Jesus' ethics only include untillegent questions like "Why?" and "What does that mean?" and also proving his "revolutionary originality" wrong. He must first understand what he's trying to prove wrong! In order to be an atheist, you must first know christianity; in order to be a christian, you must know atheism. Without both you're being closed minded and ignorant.
I was also really hoping for him to prove the resurrection wrong, (which I see as the hardest Christian objection) but Smith convienently skips even mentioning it in objectional discussion.Furthermore, many of his ojections can actually be proven wrong by a first year Christian!
Also, lot's of his objections were actually just conclusions made by other atheists, directly quoted in the book! If you want to find out about atheism, maybe you should try a different book. (perhaps one of the many Smtih uses in creating his book!)
Rating: 
Summary: The Best book for Atheist
Review: This book is excellent. The only problem is that this book is outdated. Man would I love for smith to present a well comprehensive defense of Atheism like michael martin did but a little more readable and a lot less wordy !!!!!!!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Yes.
Review: I'm a Christian, and I found that reading this book was rather like eating a lemon. It didn't taste very nice and it gave me tummy ache. But at times it was zesty and interesting. I read it because we need to hear what other people think. Yes. The Good Lord can be relied on. I managed to reach the end of it but it became bitter and sour. I was glad to get back to my Bible. Yes. That's my proper dinner. After reading this book, I'm now happy to be irrational for Jesus. The Good Lord said that all we need to understand the Truth is a 'child-like faith'. Yes. From that point of view, Smith's arguments add up to nothing. Why? Because atheistic arguments will always get eaten up by the depth and breadth of the Infinite. Religious faith - belief that reality has a deeper purpose - will always be able to rise above sceptics and prosper. Faith is the language of the heart, rather than the language of the head. This is the bit over Smiths head. Whether we believe that life has purpose or no purpose, whether we believe that this world is the be all and end all, or that Heaven awaits us beyond the veil of death, whether we believe that the Infinite is transcendent and purposeful, or non-purposeful - it's all a matter of faith. Without faith, our model of the world collapses into a limbo-state of agnosticism. This is where Smith is. This is where atheism is. Faith will always be at home with religious belief. Smith's long-winded arguments about "teleological", "cosmological", "design", and all else - all amount to nothing. Why? Because the Infinite - "the Word" John 1.1-4 - is beyond our finite minds. We cannot expect to answer the big questions anyway, from the point of view of our intellect. The big answers can be found within our hearts. Always. A child-like faith is all we need. Deep down, we can all trust that God is with us always, and that life has deeper purpose. By definition, it's "the Truth". I've now done my travelling to foreign lands, i.e. reading a book like Smith's. I've learned that the Good Lord is the remedy for belly ache, and that He can be relied on. I prefer the taste of Jesus. It's like strawberries and cream on a sunny afternoon. Lord, my heart is at peace and I'm doing the best I can before you take me Home. (Jesus, Can we tell these folk yet that they're really misguided agnostics? Sshh)
Rating:
Summary: Fundamentalists attempt analysys without proper exegesis!!!
Review: This book justifies why the concept of faith is not a cognitively acceptable means of arriving at truth, and if we make an exception only to religious faith, we have thrown out reason in it's entirety. It is very irritating when fundamentalist reviewers come on here and write reviews that do not challegnge or give any examples of how this book's arguments are "outdated and long defeated", as wrote one reviewer from Aurora Ontario. Then give us an example, which argument? First of all, this person wrote that Smith argues for Atheim in a negative sense and not in a positive sense, where in the book, the author clearly argues a positive sense of atheism-- proof that this person either did not care to read carefully, or does not write an accurate exegesis of his work at all, (and probabily did not even read the book). If you're gonna write a review, don't just show insensitivity to the work by trying to explain it away with a dry remark rather then telling us which argument you are specifically referring to. In fact, Smith has a very sophisticated cosmological argument refutation, with a clear-cut case that shows that by taking away the existence of the natural universe as a causal primary, the result is a dropping of the context in which causality is possible. And also since matter has not been proven to appear or dissappear, but only, accumulate, change state, disintegrate, expand, or compress, we have no right to betray the existence of the universe by treating speculative claims as the truth, but which have no basis in fact. If reviewers at least show courtesy by engaging the arguments like these before giving a low star rating to the book, at least the person agues for his or her claims. This sort of fallacious lne of thought is reminiscent of Christianity's erroneous assumption that the terms obedience and morality are identical. But let me go with this line of thought and ask the Christian: 1) how is it even the slightest bit moral to obey autocratic commands from the most morally reprehensible doctrine ever- one of threats of the most vicious physical force? I don't even know why I am even offering a so much respect to these people by giving them an argument in cases like this that do not even deserve the respect and regard of my challenge. The ongoing fallacies of the religionist are anti-reason.
Rating: 
Summary: Contemplation of theism
Review: This book was intended for Christians, to reveal the irrational proposals that they make.
I am a Christian who was looking for a challenge on the belief of God. Smith made very good points on the intellectualism of religion. He talks about the lack of knowledge that theists have. This book made me realize that theist needs more basis on their belief. A problem with the book was he didn't provide actual evidence against God and the book is only based only on empirical evidence. The book mainly talks about what theists say about a god and it contradicts their statements to the point that it seemed senseless to believe in a god. The second problem with the book was Smith usually applied evidence of statements about theists who rely solely on faith. It could have provoked more thought if he used statements of theists who base their beliefs on theology. He made statements that I agree on, but had no relevancy on rebutting of religion. On the other hand there were many cases that his statements could have been easily refuted. If you are looking to see what theists are lacking of regarding information on their proclamation and want to know what you should now before you make a case for God, this is a good book. I recommend a different book if you are looking for theoretical evidence. Also this book isn't a very good source for Christians that are skeptical about God. I don't find its intent of destroying theism a reliable source for an intelligent reason to disbelieve theism.
Rating: 
Summary: Comments on Atheism: The case Against God
Review: In 'Atheism: The Case Against God' George Smith argues against theism in general and Christianity in particular. In his work Smith adopts the 'weak' or negative definition of atheism interpreting it as a lack of belief in God, rather, than the 'stronger' definition of atheism as the belief that there is no God. Smith's description of atheism will strike many readers as remarkably similar to the common understanding of agnosticism. In defining atheism thus, Smith seeks to put the onus on theists to prove the existence of God. Written for the laymen, the book touches briefly on variety of philosophical and theological issues such the nature of god, faith, reason as well as the various arguments for the existence of God. Smith concludes with specific criticisms of Christianity and what he perceives to be its' negative impacts upon society. Throughout his discussion Smith seeks to create a picture of theism as being irrational and in doing so remove it as a viable intellectual option. Overall, although the author touches on some important theological and philosophical questions, I found 'Atheism: The Case Against God' disappointing. Many of his arguments were severely dated and have largely been defeated. In general these types of works (arguments for and against the existence of God) sing to the choir and tend to set up and defeat opposing 'strawman' arguments. This said, however, I found Smith to be particularly biased and dogmatic in his views. Additionally, his handling of philosophical concepts and arguments was often muddled and sometimes incoherent. As a starting point for readers seeking an introduction to the respective arguments for and against the existence of God I would recommend reading a transcripts of one of the many debates between prominent theists and atheists. Many of these debates have been complied by organizations such as the Internet Infidels and the Campus Crusade for Christ and are available on-line for no cost (William Lane Craig has many on his web-site). Some of these transcripts are well annotated and provide good suggestions for further reading.
Rating:
Summary: Review - Atheism: The Case Against God
Review: In 'Atheism: The Case Against God George Smith argues against theism in general and Christianity in particular. In his work Smith adopts the 'weak' or negative definition of atheism interpretting it as a lack of belief in God, rather, than the 'stronger' definition of atheism as the belief that there is no God. Smith's description of atheism will strike many readers as remarkably similar to the common understanding of agnosticism. In defining atheism thus, Smith seeks to put the onus on theists to prove the existence of God. Written for the laymen, the book touches briefly on variety of philosophical and theological issues such the nature of god, faith, reason and arguments for the existence of God. Smith concludes with specific criticisms of Christianity and what he perceives to be its' negative impacts upon society. Throughout his discussion Smith seeks to create a picture of theism as being irrational and in doing so remove it as a viable intellectual option. Overall, although the author touches on some important theological and philosophical questions, I found 'Atheism: The Case Against God' disappointing. Many of his arguments were severely dated and have largely been defeated. In general these types of works (arguments for and against the existence of God) sing to the choir and tend to set up and defeat opposing "strawman" arguments. This said, however, I found Smith to be particularly biased and dogmatic in his views. Additionally, his handling of philosophical concepts and arguments was often muddled and sometimes incoherent. As a starting point for readers seeking an introduction to the respective arguments for and against the existence of God I would recommend reading a transcripts of one of the many debates between prominent theists and atheists. Many of these debates have been complied by organizations such as the Internet Infidels and the Campus Crusade for Christ and are available on-line for no cost (William Lane Craig has many on his web-site). Some of these transcripts are well annotated and provide good suggestions for further reading.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Primer In Religious Apologetics
Review: Though I consider myself a Christian, I do not support the Christian apologetic stance that our faith can be verified through reason, and George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" gives ample reasons as to why. Faith should be, as Soren Kierkegaard envisioned it, a purely irrational leap. The restriction on the length of my review of this book (imposed by
Amazon.com at a 1,000 words) does not allow me to delineate all the positive particulars this book has to offer. Regrettably, I can only emphasize what aspects of this book distinguish it from other works of a similar nature. One of the most attractive features that I found in Smith's book was his ability to convey complex philosophical dilemmas, that are germane to the realm of theism, without falling into the common practice - which most professional philosophers constantly do - of inundating his arguments with esoteric jargon. Any laymen can peruse through Smith's work without having to open a philosophical dictionary every five minutes. While Smith does put forth his charges against religious belief in a manner that is fairly easy to grasp, he does not sacrifice substantive content, therefore an individual who is more seasoned in the subject of philosophy and theology will not find "Atheism: The Case Against God" lacking by any means. This ability to reach both the philosophical hobbyist and the academician speaks much of Smith's talent as a writer as it does of him as a philosopher. Outside this book's easily discernable assertions, another noteworthy characteristic of Smith's piece is its originality. In reading other works relating to non-theistic argumentation, I began to see the same routine of arguing for atheism, which consisted of providing a summation of a particular theistic argument, and then find certain fallacies or misrepresentations that the argument may have. Whether the argument happened to be cosmological, teleological, ontological, or moralistic the same technique was employed to engage all of them. Though this is a very effective means of addressing an argument, it is one that has been used ad nauseam. So for an individual who has been exposed to a great deal of such kinds of work, it is refreshing to see this more innovative approach to the whole theistic/atheistic controversy. If one had to describe Smith's approach in one word that word would have to be "fundamental". As stated earlier, other philosophical works that address the theistic position get bogged down in the various details of theistic argumentation, without striking at the root or presupposition that such arguments are built on. Smith's technique on the other hand address what is at the heart of these arguments. What is at the root of most theistic arguments for the belief in a
God? According to Smith this is not the proper question to ask. The proper question to ask is what is presupposition of any argument period. The answer to this question is the ability to decipher truth from falsehood. Yet verification, as Smith so deftly explains to his audience, rests on the use of certain standards, which gauge the reality of any given proposition. Since we exist within a universe our standards must be derived from our perception of the universe. Given this idea, if anything is posited, which exists outside the universe (i.e. God or any form of supernatural entity), the argument is futile. In fact, as Mr. Smith rightly claims, it is not an argument at all. The universe, in the words of Ayn Rand are the "causal primary". One cannot talk about causation (i.e. cosmological arguments), design (i.e. teleological arguments), or moralistic arguments unless one is speaking within a proper context, which in this case is the universe itself. To do otherwise is to regress into a state of incoherence. For example, it is ultimately absurd to talk about a cause to the universe, if we derive the concept of cause from our observation of the universe. To talk about a concept, such as causal relationships, outside the context from which the concept was realized (i.e. the universe) is to divorce it from its context. Thus the theist has rendered his argument ineffective. To paraphrase Mr. Smith "to talk about a cause to the universe is like talking about a bird's flight with no atmosphere." In one crushing argumentative blow after another, with the physical universe as a necessary axiom, Mr. Smith annihilates most of traditional theistic rhetoric, without even delving into the individual fallacies, which are inherent in all of them. Only two words are necessary to describe his approach - "SHEER BRILLIANCE!!!" The theist is left with very few options. He either can retract all his assertions and admit that there is no rational basis for the belief in God or he can attack the very foundation of reason (the physical universe) - thus precluding his right to employ argument. Either way, George Smith backs the Christian apologist and proponents of the supernatural into such a tight corner, that it is virtually impossible for them to escape A theist, who has read other critiques on theism and agrees with them, may believe that he has some recourse in faith. However Mr. Smith has addressed this issue and shown it as an invalid method for attaining the truth. Clearly Mr. Smith in his book "Atheism: The Case Against God" leaves theists with no options. He has shown theism, and especially the Christian manifestation of it, for what it truly is - a worldview rife with misology. Mr. Smith undermines the old Christian adage that all truth can be found if one believes in God, and instead edifies David's Brooks position that "to explain the unknown by the known is logical procedure, but to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." This book is a must read for anyone pondering the claims of theism seriously.
Rating:
Summary: AtheistWorld.Com Book Review
Review: This book is simply a must read!
Rating:
Summary: Essential First Book on Atheism
Review: As a philosophical theist who studies the comparative structure and self-referential aspects of theistic and atheistic argumentation, I much prefer the works of Kai Nielsen. But Smith's book is essential reading nonetheless. One point generally avoided by both sides is related to an issue mentioned by Nielsen in the second chapter of his Ethics Without God: to have reasons for believing in God is to already believe in a foundational criterion which does not itself assume belief in God. He's more than right, for there are actually several prior assumptions: 1) a criterion for adjudicating the issue, 2) reasons as God-belief determiners, 3) the obligation to believe 1) and 2), and 4) the obligation to believe in God because of 1), 2), and 3). But atheism doesn't get a free ride. The obligation to believe a universal per se---whether atheism or love or the value of inquiry---is just as vulnerable as belief in God. Why stop with merely questioning the existence of God? And universal assumptions are just as comprehensive, exceptionless, and mind-obligating as belief in God was ever dreamed of being. As we say in philosophy, everyone has their god-statements. Consequently, atheistic brow-beating of believers, as if they are not obeying some kind of belief-commandments, is indistinguishable from the condemnatory fundamentalist thumping so similarly disparaged in atheistic circles. Each individual is the god of their own belief-choices. Philosophical theists believe this is the necessary functioning of the image of God as an inextricable aspect of the very nature of personal consciousness. Atheists also believe this to be simply a natural necessity of personal consciousness, but that there is nothing more to it. But what is the status of the statement, "There is nothing more to it."? Ah, there's the reductionist rub, even if one believes it for oneself alone without prescribing it for anyone else. I suggest the following books: Critiques of God, by Angeles [ed.], The Atheist Debater's Handbook, by Johnson, "Atheological Apologetics" by Shalkowski (American Philosophical Quarterly), and The God of Atheism by Wasson.
| 
