Rating: 
Summary: Excellent book on atheism and it's 20 years old
Review: The book covers in great detail many subjects that atheists like myself need to cover in better detail. This book definitely made me think more on certain ideas. I have even come to the realization that if theists would agree that god is only an idea I could understand how they say they believe in a god. Not that god is real but that god is an image they use to be better humans. However as the book lays out many theists think there is some all-powerful man in the sky watching over us yet not one shred of evidence supports this. The natural laws allow us to live on earth now but it wasn't that way billions of years ago. Evolution took place. The book has a perfect comparison of this when he simply makes up a creature and gives this creature all-powerful characteristics. That's a nice story to tell but George is willing to admit that the creature doesn't exist. He admits that he simply made it up and just because people believe it doesn't make the creature real. The burden of proof was on George to define this creature and unlike theists he admitted it wasn't real. There is no clear definition of god as the book points out because god is just an idea and even the definition evolves. The Holy Trinity was decided by a group of men in the 4th century by a vote. George admits atheists don't know everything and never will. But they don't stop looking and give credit to his creature idea or any mythical god. Good intermediate to higher level of atheism book considering it is more than 20 years old.
Rating:
Summary: Fence sitters and hesitant Christians take heed!
Review: Perhaps I wouldn't be an atheist today if I had grown up in the Disney-land version of Christianity that most people seem stuck in. The fact of the matter though is that the version I got was not devoid of hellfire and brimstone and end-times gibbersigh. Perhaps it soured me to Christianity? Surely. But if reading the Bible (specifically, various cruel, sexist and hateful passages in the Old Testament, and contradictions throughout the entire book) soured me to Christianity, reading this book simply angered me. I was angry because I believed such rubbish and now see said rubbish being preached, peddled and prostituted all over the world!
Smith himself is an ex-Christian, and so is hard on Christianity, as opposed to say, Islam or Judaism. The arguments against the Christian God (which, theologically is the same God of Judaism and the Allah of Islam) apply accross the board.After reading arguments against a theistic view, and seeing proof that the world really wasn't created in 6 days and the "end times" aren't, the one thing that did it for me was the lack of evidence. Lack of evidence equates to lack of belief. Period. Want me to belief? Show me the proof. I think it's a very fair statement. Regardless, this book wil provide all the arguments against some of the more fundamentalistic views of God, which are easily dispelled. It's certainly not an in depth, argument by argument analysis of every aspect of theism, but it will provide plenty of information for those who like to be informed, but aren't looking for a degree in a book.
Rating: 
Summary: Regarding the review entitled, "atheism is just plain wrong"
Review: In your review, you state that Jesus Christ is God. I must ask...when was the last time you read a bible? The version I grew up studying begins with God creating the earth. Jesus, his only son, was born later of the virgin Mary. I would recommend that you attend a remedial bible study course and get your facts straight before you continue your crusade against atheism. As for the Bible, it is nothing but a collection of stories written by people whose aim was to bring order to society by scaring them into thinking that their actions would have consequences from God.
Rating: 
Summary: More muddled atheist thinking.
Review: The most embarrassing aspect of Smith's presentation is that no great technical interaction is necessary to confute his claims. From beginning to end, Smith's most basic fallacy is that he begs-the-question on the grandest scale. In other words, his arguments only succeed because they blatantly presuppose that atheism is true and Christianity is false. Given that assumption, it is a simple exercise to conclude that atheism is true, in which case Smith's book would have been much shorter and not sold as well, However, as we will see, he not only assumes what he attempts to prove, but his critique only succeeds if he is omniscient, in which case, his book would have been much more expensive. On Begging the Question
The weapon Smith uses most significantly throughout the various turns in his argument is his claim regarding the limits placed on the concept of God by a non-theistic natural law framework. But this assumes what needs to be proven. A parallel and equally silly counter-argument might be that Smith's atheism is false since it fails to account for divine attributes. But a silly response is all that a silly argument calls for.
We find Smith's question-begging argument in his initial discussion of a supernatural being. His argument (40) can be filled out as follows: Premise 1 -- The universe and every entity behave in accord with natural law ("uniformity of nature"). Premise 2 -- Natural law is determined by the limited nature of existence. Premise 3 -- Existence is limited in that every entity has a specific nature, determinate (finite) characteristics, that determine the capacities of that entity. Premise 4 -- Whatever does not have finite characteristics does not exist. Premise 5 -- A supernatural being does not have finite characteristics Conclusion -- A supernatural being does not exist. If you remember, Smith is so impressed with this argument that he has the theist concede and shift the debate. But why would a theist concede to such a silly argument? What theist would grant the anti-theistic premises? Even theists who hold to some form of natural law metaphysic would not grant that every entity is limited by natural law, and yet that is exactly what Smith requires. Even more laughable are the universal generalizations contained in most of the premises. How does Smith justify such claims as "Every entity has a specific nature," or "to be something is to be something specific," or "regularity in nature is a con sequence of limitations," or "no existing thing can randomly do anything at any time under any conditions," or "the principle of natural law itself is a constant." Has Smith investigated every entity and every aspect of the universe? Can he provide empirical studies demonstrating his claims about existence and regularities? And while he certainly provides no a priori proof for such dogmatic claims, they would be fun to see anyway. Perhaps Smith would like us simply to bow before the authority of Aristotle on such questions, but Christians are far too skeptical for such dogmatisms. Smith's premises require omniscience, and short of that, Smith's own epistemology leads to skepticism, since the above magical premises are so integral to his epistemology (90). This outcome is not surprising to the Christian, since this tension is the constant state of those who reject a Biblical view of reality; they are tossed back and forth between omniscience and skepticism. On Begging a Bigger Question
Smith not only happily assumes a universe which precludes the Christian God, he also begs-the-question regarding the ultimate standards one uses to evaluate the war between atheism and Christianity. Both Christianity and atheism evaluate arguments and evidence on the basis of some standard beyond which there is no further appeal; this Absolute standard is inescapable. For the Christian, the Absolute standard is the personal triune God revealed in Scripture. There is no higher court of appeal by which the Christian evaluates what is rational, ethical, or real. A Biblical outlook simply does not countenance any human standard of rationality to which God must answer. If God is truly Absolute, as he is presented in Scripture, then He stands as the ultimate judge over all issues in logic, ethics, reality, and knowledge. The Christian God is not in the dock being forced to answer to our finite standards.
Atheists must howl at this sort of stance, since it appears to beg-the-question against any atheistic claim. Yet the atheist's howling is naive. If there were some higher standard of "reason" or "conceivability" by which both the atheist and Christian could adjudicate their dispute, then the Christian God would not be Absolute; He would be limited by something outside and above His nature. Yet the Christian does not worship some being subordinate to Platonic Forms or some alleged higher standard of reason or goodness. The Christian God is truly the final court of appeal. The atheist also has a final court of appeal. The atheist also bows before an Absolute standard. And just like the Christian, the atheist does not permit anything to correct or evaluate this ultimate standard, for if he did then the standard would obviously not be the final court of appeal. The ultimate standard for the non-Christian, in general, and Smith, in particular, is finite human rationality -- or the autonomous human mind. Though this Absolute standard is often portrayed as "Reason," it is, from a Christian standpoint, a distortion of reason. Nevertheless, this non-Christian Absolute functions in much the same manner as the Christian Absolute. Non-Christians even use religious terminology when they refer to this Absolute -- "bowing before the bar of reason" or "reason is the only guide" or "we cannot dispute reason" or "an offense against reason." Smith is rather blatant in specifying his religious commitment to his Absolute. Note just a sample of statements which point to his atheistic dogmatism: "We obviously cannot accept the proposed attributes of God uncritically; we must determine if they are intelligible" (61); "According to atheism, all of existence falls (in principle) within the scope of man's knowledge" (89); "The idea of the unknowable is an insult to the intellect" (45); "We cannot imagine an immaterial being' because the concept of matter' is essential to our concept of being'" (67); "How can one conceptualize existence apart from matter, energy and their derivatives, when these are the only kinds of existence of which we have knowledge" (54); "Theism offers us a bit of knowledge' which, if true, would destroy the foundation of all present knowledge by obliterating the naturalistic context within which we comprehend reality" (90). What more need be said? Any being not bowing to the finite human intellect cannot exist! Smith in principle rules out any Absolute which stands as an epistemological judge over his Absolute. But since the Christian God is just that -- an Absolute standard evaluating finite human rationality -- Smith again begs-the-question against the Christian, this time by using a standard which guarantees the falsity of Christianity. It is no wonder then that he can offer such bravado as "the Christian...is defending the rationally indefensible" (88). Smith's bravado, however, reduces to the assertion that Christianity is false because atheism is true (said perhaps with a loud voice and an authoritative glare). But this sort of claim is not very convincing. Smith has entirely missed the debate. Instead of assuming the falsity of Christianity and passing this off as some high-level rational analysis, Smith should enter the debate between two competing Absolutes. Which Absolute is superior? We may ask this question because we are not abandoned to relativism; we are not left with two faith commitments. We may determine the superiority of one of the views by, among other things, demonstrating that one view fails to meet up to its own claims, or similarly, by determining which view of reality provides the preconditions of the knowledge we do indeed have. The Christian argues that Smith's Absolute fails on its own standards. Smith's atheism claims to provide a basis for knowledge when in fact it destroys the very foundation of rationality, logic, science, and ethics. For example, Smith needs to explain how he can appeal to reason at all. How does a materialist account for logical laws which are universal and immaterial? How is he justified in invoking universal generalizations when he is not omniscient? How can he reconcile appealing to a naturalistic framework and yet repeatedly invoke ghostly entities such as essences, natures, consciousness, justice, and evil? In short, if Smith were more consistent with his outlook, then he would weed it of its dependence on Christianity, but such a purge would destroy all his claims to knowledge as well. Unknowability, Inapprehensibility, and Incomprehensibi
Rating:
Summary: atheism is just plain wrong
Review: if the author is saying that Christ who is God is not a real person ,then he is wrong. the problem with atheists is that they think highly of themselves as being Jesus Christ. Christ is a very special being, a God, who created every one and this planet-earth along with the other planets. it does not matter whether this author or any other author wrote this book not, atheists tend in general want more and more people to believe in their beliefs-in a God Christ who rules this planet and who cares about everyone of us. a world with atheists, even though, happy atheists, are just people, who at the mention of Christ just get angered. atheist people regardless of their image, social or economic status want to be considered a Christ God, but do fall short alot. author is just plain stupid. people need to believe in Christ
Rating:
Summary: A Journey to Reason
Review: I first read Atheism:The Case Against God back in 1986 at the age of thirteen. At the time the book proved to be the most important piece of literature in my life & led to my "detoxing" from the drug-like reliance on a belief in a god that so many confused masses still subscribe to. I found then as today that Mr. Smith's writing style & arguments were both concise & accessible to the "common man" as well as those already well versed in the arguments for a non-belief in a deity(although he also succesfully argues in his book that the burden of proof lies with the believer & NOT the atheist). I would whole-heartedly recommend this book; not only to those who are questioning or are not afraid to question their belief system but also to those who have already embraced reason in their lives as it most certainly will arm you with very persuasive arguments and rhetorts based on logic to counter the emotion-based sermons that "believers" are so willing to share with us. A great book to share with teens.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: I have heard that this book cannot convince theists. Granted, that was never Smith's intention, but it certainly convinced me. He shows God for what it is: a floating, self-contradictory abstraction. Also, he exposes that not only is God gibberish, but unnecessary gibberish. If one is not going to believe in a God that rewards piety and punishes sin, then why believe in God at all? Without the justice component, he is worthless. Smith demonstrates this brilliantly, and for that I applaud him. He shows that there are two alternatives: stand on the value of your own judgement, or cower in fear. If you choose to cower, you have no one to blame but yourself, and in the end you are cowering before a puff of manufactured smoke.
Rating:
Summary: Theist Killer
Review: As a long time atheist, it was quite interesting to read this book. It provides a rational and logical analysis of the theist's desperate seeking to know "his" place in the world. A much cooler read than say, the heat and flame of the alt.atheism newsgroup where theists are ground into dust just for the fun of it. There's no use in trashing people, it is much more important to open their eyes and lead them out their supersitious beliefs. This book provides the necessary tools. Granted, it is hard to reason people out of a position, that they didn't arrive at by reason. But we got to try, even the ignorant deserve a chance to live a unfettered life. Even I, however, realize that some don't have the mental strength to live such a life. The human animal is, after all, a social animal and as such, needs to have an alpha male/female in charge of the tribe. It is a credit to the mental evolution of the human brain, that we no longer make gods of trees, mountains and other natural phenomena. This book provides a mental tool to start the opening of the eyes of the mislead. The brain's ability for pattern recognition is both a blessing and a curse. It provides the greatest tool for the advancement of humanity, but in the hands of the ignorant, it will drag the human race back into dark ages. Buy this book, open your mind, then go out and free your fellow humans minds. To my fellow reviewers pushing intelligent design: please take some courses in logic, physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics. And remember, you may need to have a "alpha daddy" to make sense of the universe. Most people don't.
Rating: 
Summary: How do you define "atheist"?
Review: This book confirms my own experience that most of the people who declare themselves "atheists" are in fact "anti-religionists" which I think is a much more accurate term. Anyone can focus on the hypocrisy of churchgoers and the unbelievability of miracles which require suspending the laws of thermodynamics--but let's remember that religions are man made. To believe that there is not a creative intelligence in the universe is to believe that an explosion in a print shop can produce Webster's unabridged dictionary. Or, if you are an "evolutionary" atheist, that a billion explosions over a million years will in fact produce an unabridged dictionary. Thus argument is more ludicrous than many of the miracles which many religions proclaim.
Rating:
Summary: Yawn
Review: I would be most impressed if an atheist could beat Dr William Lane Craig or Dr. J.P. Moreland in a debate. Many like Kai Neilson have lost. All this talk about being rational is entertaining. Atheists either don't believe in the Principle of Causality (notice it's principle not theory like Darwinian evolution) or the LAWS (again not theories) of Thermodynamics. Principle of causality states that whatever began to exist has a cause. Even David Hume thought it absurd to believe otherwise. Thermodynamics which is an exact science shows that the amount of USEABLE energy in the universe is decreasing. If the universe never began to exist then an actual infinite amount of time has passed before us. If an infinite amount of time has passed before us, the amount of USEABLE energy would be depleated by now. The universe is a closed system so even if the universe was filled to full capacity in useable energy, in an infinite amount of time USEABLE energy would still be reduced to nothing and their would be equilibrium throughout. Since total equilibrium does not exist and since we still have USEABLE energy, an infinite amount of time has not passed, as a result the universe has a beginning. Since the universe has a beginning, it must have something that caused it and that cause is God. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes since their is not an infinite amount of time for these causes. There must be a necessary cause. That cause is God. Don't believe me? Read William Lane Craig - Reasonable Faith or J.P. Moreland - Scaling the Secular City. Better yet read both. Atheists I dare you. I can't be an atheist - I don't have enough blind faith. I read books refuting Christianity, please read Reasonable Faith by Dr. William Lane Craig or Scaling the Secular City by Dr. J.P. Moreland. As expertly these men argue rationally for Christianity in general, they and other men write rationally about other specific percieved problems. Give it an honest in depth study. You've got nothing to loose except a few hours but everything to gain in eternity. Statement of one reviewer: ATHEISM IS NOT A PROOF THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. INSTEAD IT IS THE ASSERTION THAT THEISM DOES NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. Answer: Atheism does not provide adequate proof for the non-existence of God. In fact Theism comes much closer to proving God through scientific laws and priciples than Atheism through rhetoric. Both Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking ( I'd hope you would agree they knew a thing or two about cosmology) went from staunch atheism to deism through their studies. Their thoughts are that the universe must have been created by a superior being. Einstein said "I want to know the mind of God, the rest is just details." Conclusion: A belief in God is much more rational based on evidence than a belief of atheism based on dogma.
| 
