Why Atheism?

Rating:
Summary: Horrible display of logic and word gymnastics
Review: From the first chapter Smith defines and then redefines the words he uses to make his point. The logic in this book is horrendous. He defines the term theism to mean belief in God in the beginning of the book and then later on defines it as belief in a higher being to support his faulty notion that God is an atheist.

I'm in apologetics myself and I've read a number of good books on the subject of atheism, but this is hardly one of them. Even Dan Barker's elementary thought process is above these word gymnastics. There are a number of fatal flaws Smith makes in his arguments that would only give way to strengthen a believer's faith. I would recommend all Christian's to read this book.

Rating:
Summary: Why Buy This Book? I'm Not Quite Sure.
Review: I must admit that I was looking forward to reading this book, as I enjoyed Smith's previous work in Atheism: The Case against God. However, this book failed to deliver anything meaningful. First of all, Smith's goal for the book was quite puny. He claims that it is his intention to show that atheism is a viewpoint that should be considered. But, even with this restrained goal, Smith's book never seems to go anywhere.

Much of this book seems to be a history lesson. However, I fail to see how any of that turns atheism into a credible worldview. These chapters seemed out of place, and they seemed to drag on for way too long.

Smith's chapter, "Some Irreverent Questions About God" was much to short to give atheism any credibility. Smith's refutation of the Ontological Argument may be useful, but again it does not seem to give atheism any credibility.

Smith's work here was very disappointing. I would recommend his earlier book for a much more useful and relevant discussion of atheism.

Rating:
Summary: Why this book?
Review: I'll be brief, as perhaps Smith should have been with this "book". My honest interest in atheism (or disinterest in any particular doctrine of belief-systems) led me to splurge my money on this little skit.

What do I get? Correspondence theory, representationism, Separatationism, Eastern mysticism, yada yada and then some ism. This pedantic diarrhoea could turn a chestnut into a monk for want of some sanity.

Nothing against Smith, I subscribe to his monthly e-zine (google for it) which has an occasional point or two that makes me go "Yeah, hmm, true". But this book is entirely skippable unless you sport long hair/pierced tongue and operate under a leitmotif of "dude, like, awesome".

Consider Atheism by Michael Martin if you are serious.