Rating: 
Summary: A book which believers will have to deal with
Review: I don't understand this book as an "introduction to atheism" at all. Atheism, according to me (and this book) is not really a subject at all. It's very simply the refusal to believe in Santa Claus, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, or whatever purveyor of a "God-concept" happens to be around. Although this book focuses on the errors of Christianity, I believe that all the concepts apply to Islam and Judaism. "Atheism" is not a religion at all. It is simply the statement, "I don't buy your mind-control tactics."After that, atheists can be anything they would like to be, axe-murderers or philanthropists. They already had a character and a personality, before hanging up the phone on people peddling the opiate of the masses (you know, Communism, Catholicism, Islam, and all the rest). It might be interesting for atheists to join together and see if they could work out some sort of social program. Of course, that apparently already happened, in 1776 and later years, with the promulgation of the U.S. Constitution. I am not a Mormon. I am not a Muslim. I am not a Christian. I am not a (fill in the blank). Does this tell you my own philosophy? I don't think so. It simply tells you that I have some standard of truth, however frail. The strength of this book is its enormously convincing analysis of the problems involved with the idea of "God." This being is supposedly omniscient (all-knowing). Hm, well, bye-bye to the idea of free will. He is supposedly omnipotent. Hm, well, if he knows every detail about the future, how could he act to change that future? Either the omniscience or the omnipotence has to go. As to the "benevolent," don't make me laugh. Go read the Bible or the Koran and tell me all about that "benevolent" & destructive maniac. Then sit yourself down and have a good time explaining IN DETAIL how this wonderful, loving, benevolent creature just managed to slip up and create a place called Hell, to store his beloved children in. This book well repays every moment spent with it. Highest recommendation!
Rating: 
Summary: A good introduction. Highly recommended.
Review: I don't actually have anything to say that hasn't already been repeated several times over by those below me. I give this book 4 stars instead of 5 because it isn't as detailed as I'd prefer (true, it wasn't meant to be very detailed) and because certain parts of it are out of date (chiefly parts in the latter portion of the book where he makes use of history and science.)
Rating:
Summary: God and other imaginary people in the sky.
Review: I like the review that states "creation of a single cell is impossible" (or something like that) but GOD is real! What in the hell is that? Just the simple statement is ludicris. Just because you were stupid enough to believe that there is an imaginary man in the sky watching you all the time and he knows if your're doing right or wrong and you will have to answer to him,don't think the rest of the world is as gullable and stupid as you are! What's the difference between god and Santa? To a christian the difference is GOD IS REAL! To all others who have enough intelligence and common sense there is no difference. Tell me do you believe in Santa?
Rating: 
Summary: A disappointing example of intellectual "borrowing"
Review: When I read this book for the first time, I felt strangely like I'd read it before. I forgot about it for awhile, but soon realized why it seemed so familiar. Many of the ideas in "Atheism: a Case Against God" (1979) were first represented by Walter Kaufmann in his book, "Criticism of Religion and Philosophy" which was published in 1958. Smith's format is original, and he has a number of very funny sayings and ideas, some interesting quotes, and plenty of vehement opinions. The meat of his argument, however, was brought to the table by another hand. He is not agreeing with other writers, not even quoting, but outright reprinting Kaufmann's ideas (quite in order in some paragraphs) as if they were his own. For instance, see p. 203 of Kaufmann's book and compare it with Smith's page 84, Kaufmann's 208 with Smith' 168, and various others. Better yet, read both books and underline the numerous similarities, as I have done. Some of them are real eyebrow-raisers. Out of good will to the author and also because some ideas on the subject of thesim/atheism are common and well-known, I gave the book three stars on the off chance that these similarities are mere coincidences. From a more realistic perspective, someone who has enough wit to understand that theism is nonsense should really take more care in citing when necessary. We know that Smith read Kaufmann because he cites him elsewhere. This only makes me more suspicious. As a supposed admirer of Ayn Rand, Smith should understand in what light an Objectivist would view plagerism. Smith does a nice job of summarizing Kaufmann with some humorous bits thrown in for no extra charge, but an intelligent and discriminating reader will want to go directly to the source.
Rating: 
Summary: A response
Review: This is in response to "Regarding the review entitled, "atheism is just plain wrong". You say that the reader you critique is wrong because God created the heavens and earth and Jesus was not incarnate for many years later. Well since you are such a patron of scripture, you should know that Jesus tells the pharisees that he existed before Abraham. Jesus Christ, the entire trinity for that matter is eternal, and have always existed. Although, he did not take on flesh until the immaculate conception by the Holy Spirit. Also, one quick response to a part of this book. The author attempts to show that Scripute says Atheist will do outward wrongful acts, as if the Christian is perfect, this could not be further from the truth, we all sin. The verse he quotes Psalm 14.1 really means they do abominable acts in the eyes of God, because God does not view them through the blood of Christ, because nonbelievers reject him. And for anyone outside of Christ, there "good works" are seen as filthy rags. A work is only good through Christ, if an atheist was to cause world peace, it would get him no closer to heaven, and when a Christian sins, he is forgiven due to only Christ.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent book in a very easy readable format
Review: Atheism is a strong word even in this 21 first century. The mere word tend to shy away and scares many people, specially since Christianism is the leading religious movement in the world. I found the writer's simple,intelligent and logic method of supporting his case for atheism simply magnificent. I have read several books on the subject but Smith's is the most organized, and logical of all so far. His litherary style is simple but determined and I just couldn't put the book down until finishing it. Also he does it in a way that I find caring for any religious/Christian readers who might be looking to open their minds to what others besides his/her inner circle might think. In this sence I believe he does and excellent job. Then is up to the reader to continue the search for further knowledge. The first step for inquiring minds is to try to explore the arguments and way of thinking of opposing views.
Rating:
Summary: Good intro, but to whom?
Review: I read this book about a year ago and have since loaned it to a friend. Needless to say, I've not seen it again. I wasn't planning on writing a review, but in reading others reviews, maybe I should.
I liked the book a great deal. Like others point out, there's nothing new here but it will provide those new to the issue with a user-friendly resource. The book didn't come off sounding too angry or condescending as most books on the subject do (I have in mind particularly Russel's "Why I'm not a christian").
The problem with books like these (as the 'Junk' one star review shows us) is that it will appeal to two groups of people. First, the militant atheists (a notoriously angry bunch). This group will read the book as a release; a way to laugh at the rediculousness of faith. The second group that will read it (the 'Junk' review) are the Falwell-style religious zelouts (another notoriously angry bunch). They will read it as incontravertable proof that atheists are over-intellectual and evil. Both groups, of course, have their minds made up before page 1.
So the problem is this. I think the book is intended for those who are new to the subject and may be struggling with issues of faith vs. reason. Are they compatible? How can I know god doesn't exist? What does it mean not to believe? This group will quickly find itself lost and likely put off by the aforementioned angry groups. They may just give up on the issue altogether. I know people who have done exactly this for exactly this reason. They see Tim LaHaye in one camp and the Richard Dawkins in the other, both flailing their arms about and shouting and namecalling like schoolchildren Whew! What a choice, right?
So the missing star is not due to the content of the book, which is well organized, easily understandable and most importantly not as hostile towards faith as many others on the subject. I give the book four stars because as evident by the below reiviews, this book might offer therapy to two angry groups, but it will not change anyones mind.
Rating:
Summary: Junk
Review: As intellectually self-indulgent as atheism itself. Athiests contempt for Christ is unbelievable...well not really. They worship the one who is against Christ and don't even know it. Satan's first lie to us was that we could be like God (decide good/right from evil/wrong). In all our science and "logic" patterns, we do not have the capacity to understand what is beyond our natural world. Life is is a miracle. It is infinitly complex and it's design is far beyond our comprehension. Speaking in terms of probability, the odds of the components of a single cell forming by chance is impossible. God is real and He cannot be minimilized away by some guy with a Darwin-Fish on the back of his Volvo.
Rating:
Summary: A good primer, but...
Review: Smith gives a good overview of several key critiques of theism, although his attitude is quite arrogant and he seems belabored to even need bothering writing the book. The text is best viewed as a summary, perchance introduction, of thousands of pages of script dating back to Aquinas (Smith's chosen enemy, it seems, although I do not believe that Thomism holds enough sway to justify this). Perhaps this explains why Smith's writing does not seem terribly original (I'd recommended "Why Atheism?", although [others] seem to disagree).
One of the Smith-bashers points out that he works from the premise of atheism to the conclusion of atheism, and this is true to some extent. A philosophical work should begin with a reasonably open perspective, but, for most of the book's duration, Smith seems as close-minded as those he's attacking. When arguing for atheism as a negative proposition, only one fault of theism needs to be exposed, but Smith seems intent of proving absolutely every tenet of theism wrong.
I also take issue with Smith's equation of theism with Christianity, and of Christianity with Thomism, particularly in a few cases when he argues against Aquinas and claims to be arguing against a key theist tenet.
Don't get me wrong, I like the book, but don't buy it when Smith says that his position is reasoned and that any intelligent person will agree with him. Implying that those who disagree with you are stupid is by no means a rational arguement; Smith should know better. Think for yourself, and by the time you finish you'll be able to argue against him as well as you can argue against theists.
Rating: 
Summary: A view of atheism
Review: I think it's interesting how Christians AND atheists feel as if it can prove one side to be right in a space as small as a book review. The issue of an existence or non-existence of God cannot be explained away through definitive statements. You can't just say PROVE IT because you can't prove to me that there isn't a God. It is important to read GOOD representations of both sides. Read this book on atheism, but also read a book on apologetics, perhaps by Geisler. Neither side is going to be able to PROVE anything (or else there would be no debate), but I've just found through investigation which side I find to be more probable, which is the existence of God. It is possible for intelligent people to believe in such a thing, and also to not believe such a thing. Let's try to meet each other on equal levels.
|
