Rating: 
Summary: My review of Banderbe on sept 2001 (1/4)
Review: This is a long review of mine so you will see it in 4 parts:"The most...as well"
I disagree that this book is flawed as badly as you say. "We find...not exist."
Finite characteristics as opposed to infinite characteristics? Smith talks about unlimited attributes and shows that an unlimited attribute is a contradiction in terms because when we say something is A we imply that it is not-A and to do that to God limits him. We can not comprehend what it is like to be unlimited in terms of likenesses or natures since we have never experienced it. Thus, one can not talk meaningfully about an 'unlimited attribute.' The reviewer would have us believe that Smith does just that in this argument from page 40 but he does not. On page 41 or 42, he does not say (as this reviewer would have us believe) that those with unlimited characteristics can not exist; to say something does not exist is to imply that you know and understand what you are talking about. We are not so privileged when it comes to the 'unlimited attribute' as Smith shows in the book. "If you...Smith requires."
All Smith requires is to know what one is talking about; and in some cases, like the one I above that I mentioned, we are not so privileged. "Even more..a constant."
Let's examine the first two quotes: When we say that something is an entity, we already admit that is has an essence because existence and essence go hand in hand. Essence is another word for nature and since entities necessarily have an essence, they necessarily have a nature. The second quote is basically saying the same thing as the first quote so the above response to the first applies to this second one too. Regarding the third, this follow logically. Empirical evidence shows that there are limitations to what entities can do. Plants can not think or speak, humans can not fly and cats can not recite the national anthem. Since there is a limit to what an entity can do, we are able to remember what it is capapble of. The fact that there are some things they can not do shows us that there is a kind of regularity present. But this is due to them being limited of course. Regularity refers to the law of identity and we see that entities in the universe are finite and limited. Regularity necessarily flows from limitations because there is no other alternative to regularity with limitations. Regarding the fourth quote, this does seem like to be question begging on Smith's part because this would only be true if the universe was all there was that exists, but that is what Smith needs to prove first. However, there is stong empirical evidence to support this regarding entities in the universe. As for the principle of nature being constant, it's true that Smith just assmues it without question Smith should have covered his ass in the book by adding that although philosphers deem certain things logically possible, one should allow evidence to dictate their beliefs as Hume instructed; and since we have seen no empirical evidence of seemingly strange logical possibilities being actualized, there is no reason to invest a lot of faith into them. The reviewer has taken lines from Smith and said that a person needs to be omniscient to know them when one really does not need to be. Tsk tsk tsk. "Has Smith...regularities?"
Yes he can. In his book, he talked about cats, ants, plants, acorns, stones and theologians. This reviewer should really pay attention. "And while..such dogmatisms."
As shown above in my response, not all of those quotes point to atheistic dogmatisms. What is ironic about this last sentence is this reviewer reveals himself to be somewhat of a Christian presuppositionalist and his dogmatisms are extremely obvious later on. "This outcome...and skepticism."
I can not tell if this reviewer is implying that Smith means to point out in his book that we can either know everything or know nothing, but I bet he is. Smith never said that in his book and I can not see why he would hold to such a silly belief. Infallibility is not a criterion of attaining certainty and Smith proves this. Again, this reviewer needs to pay attention to the book. "Smith not...in Scripture."
Christians simply believe that God has revealed things to them in the bible but this belief is not equivalent to epistemic certainty. In revealed religions, the Christian swallows what the bible says without question and takes it on faith. As Smith proved, faith is empistemologically impotent and that logic and reason is our only guide. For a Christian presuppositionalist who wants to criticize me here saying that I'm being a type of presuppositionalist as well, keep reading to see why his howling is unjustified. more to come...
Rating: 
Summary: Sensible and Rational Arguments
Review: Demolishes all the standard arguments for God, with an especially devasting disassembling of the rationale for Christianity. Won't convince any true believers, but this book compiles a logical reference source for someone who wants all the significant refutations of religion over the centuries in one place. Too many books on atheism come across as arrogant and strident ... this one doesn't. It's more of a well-reasoned dissertation without emotionalism.
One way you can tell how good a job the author has done is to look at the comments of the readers who've given the book low ratings -- most don't really confront the content of the book, they merely disagree with the idea of it. I'm not sure why atheism drives so many believers so crazy, but they seem utterly flabbergasted by the notion that there are people out there who don't accept what they accept.
One of the handiest parts of this book is how thoroughly is does away with the arguments of C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity." Some people find them rather convincing, but when you finish with Smith's book, you find Lewis's work merely quaint, albeit a pleasant read.
Rating: 
Summary: A solid defense of atheism
Review: This book provides a clear and logical critique of theism. However, I doubt that it will convince believers simply because it does not address "spirituality", which in many ways short-circuits logic.
Rating:
Summary: Atheism is one answer to the Q:"Why"? Theism is another
Review: Belief-systems such as Christianity, Catholicism, and all our world religions have arisen because of human hope. They strive to answer the ultimate question "Why"? Religious tales and stories, which shape the fabric of our religious traditions, reflect deeper, spiritual truths, of which the human soul is deeply aware, but of which the mind can barely conceive. Belief in God is not an intellectual issue. It's a deeper, spiritual issue, concerned with questions about the *What Is* of ultimate reality, and the nature of our self-awareness (spirituality). Science is unable to answer the bigger questions, because science merely describes the universe, and doesn't explain why it's here in the first place. God is found by an inner-transformation of the heart, which leads to "enlightenment", or a "spiritual awakening". It is then possible to live life in the knowledge that there is a bigger picture, and a Master Plan, and be content in the knowledge that life is beautiful; a teacher; a journey; that life is a result of the choices we make, AND that none of it is an accident, that death is not the end, and our learning and appreciation of reality continues *beyond*. Such a hope satisfies our spiritual-yearning for purpose and goodness, which is why theism is a natural and logical belief for many people. It isn't a bad belief. It's not an irrational belief. It's a deeper, more open minded belief, which stems beyond the scope of atheism, satisfying a deeper hole that atheism cannot reach or fill.
Rating:
Summary: A very relieving read...
Review: I think sometimes we just have to ask ourselves, "why?"-- why do we so many of us follow such rediculous ideas as christianity or catholocism? Why can't we just be content with the fact that life is beautiful; a teacher; a journey; that life is a result of the choices we make and the paths we choose to follow? Instead we have to go off into the increadible tangeant of having an invisible parent figure in the sky who is always "watching you" and even further into rediculousness with the idea of "sin": exessive guilt-baggage that we put on ourselves by believing in the concept to begin with. Or how about, Why do we (about 70% of america) believe the most far-fetched tales imaginable, such as armageddon or jesus' ressurection, without any tangeable proof at all; while we refuse to believe simple, believable ideas such as those promoted by this book, no matter how much truth they contain? Look, I'm probably no better or smarter than anyone else who may read this; I'm not claiming to be the all-knowing, but why? Why can't we just be sober? Why can't we believe in what is right in front of us: our goals, our lives, our own path. Instead must we make up fairy tales when we are bored by the simple fact that we exist? Read this book. It is to western society what an alarm clock is to a late sleeper. Stop believing. Live a life of happiness and fulfillment. Both you and I.
Rating:
Summary: this book is necessary
Review: This book does a good job in showing the case against God. Whether that case is strong enough to deter theists is another matter. Either way, from a theistic point of view, atheism is like the teenage 'angst' phase in the growth of the human race. It lashes out, rebels against popular ideas, and tries to find its identity. This is natural and to be expected, and is not a bad thing. But as shown in the Jesus' parable of the prodigal son, it will be a matter of time (maybe centuries), when humanity will finally mature, reflect, and return to theism - our Father in Heaven - who patiently waits with open arms, and forgives us for our misguided ways. Smith's work is significant, as it reflects a necessary stage of our growth. But for a more mature outlook on life, we can turn to books like 'Conversations With God Book 1' by Neale Donald Walsch, or 'A Return to Love' by Marianne Williamson.
Rating: 
Summary: Humanity is growing up. It's time for Atheism to crumble.
Review: Smith, and many other atheists - including contemporary writers - fail to grasp the rationale of theism because they exclusively identify "God" with narrow, fundamentalist concepts. In this book, Smith puts together a lot of shallow concepts of God, discusses the contradictions and irrationalities, and concludes that all theists are intellectually bankrupt, and that the existence of God is "impossible". But this approach is fallacious, narrow and flawed. Any philosophy which claims answers to the eternal philosophical questions, (i.e. Atheism, which claims that God doesn't exist, and hence that there is no intrinsic purpose to anything) - without appeals to "faith" is dogmatic and absurd. This is Smith's brand of atheism, which is no more open minded than extreme religious fundamentalism. All theistic philosophies actually affirm that "God is Spirit", an eternal Reality, which endows the cosmos with transcendent purpose and meaning. While Smith nit-picks at the peripherals of religious fundamentalism, he ignores the deeper fruits of spirituality and theistic wisdom. Faith is necessary because divine Spirit - the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end - transcends science. It is by faith that we can disclose that there is deeper meaning to life. It is by faith that we come close to God and begin to know Him, finding inner peace and intrinsic security. It is by faith that we can trust that all suffering is redeemed by God, who welcomes us to life in the hereafter, and transforms all our pains and suffering into strength, wisdom and learning. (The crucifixion of Christ demonstrated that God intimately shares in the world's suffering, and takes all our sins on board. The resurrection demonstrated that there is no such thing as death). Smith denies the existence of God, and denies the necessity of human faith, while in the same breath, makes statements regarding the nature of the Infinite. What does this say about Atheism? What does this say about apparent "reason", and "free thinking"? God is the future. Reality has Good News. Let us seek it. Let us embrace it. Let us trust it. With reason AND faith.
Rating:
Summary: a good introduction to atheism
Review: upside: this book's not bad. i read some of the reviews here and believe they are rather harsh. compared to other atheism books, it's above average. smith offers a fairly complete analysis on the merits of atheism and convincing arguments against possible theistic responses in a nice easy-to-read style. for those interested in atheism, this is a great place to start. downside: a bit outdated, first written over twenty years ago. overall: smith accomplishes his objective: to present a stong "case against god." will it change minds? perhaps, but like any good atheism book, it makes you think.
Rating:
Summary: Atheism: the case against reason.
Review: Here in this poorly argued book is the reason why most people are theists. I have never come across more foolish arguments for not believing in God, than this book. Here is a sampling of some of the "brilliant" reasoning. Using twisted definitions, Smith comes to the conclusion that the word "God" is something without meaning. Since it has no meaning, then from this we can say that God doesn't exist. To most people the word "God" means an all knowing, all powerful being. Where is the lack of meaning in this? The only thing that has no meaning is a contradiction and Smiths book is loaded with them. Using Smiths circus act of defining things into absurdity, anything can become incoherent. Take another of his "arguments". For a thing to have meaning it must have a limit. So words like "God", "limitless", and all other words must be inherent contradictions. Publishers of dictionaries, debates about Gods existence, Aristotle, and Plato have been wrong all these years when they wrote about God, the eternal and the infinite. How could such philosophers have known about "linguistic definitions" that Smith uses? We live in intresting times... How could they have known that the word "God" is really a contradiction? If the word "God" is meaningless then how is it possible for Smith to use it? If something has no meaning then it is absurd on its face. It is nothing. So all throughout the book Smith is arguing against a non existant God. To think that one would spend his time writing and arguing on nothing and all these reviewers praising a book about nothing makes me fear for the world.
Rating:
Summary: Are You Insane?
Review: How to Prove God Exists?
How come the natural systems make the color yellow, yellow.
How come dark is dark. How come we call absence of light dark? How come said absence of dark exists?
What created the materials for the big bang?
Want to challenge me?
E-Mail me at yellowjacket832@yahoo.com
| 
