Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God

This is perhaps the best place to start. The author's arguments are rational and fair. Though I'd be considered a relatively new "born again athiest," this is one of the best books that I've read so far on this topic.

This book is really easy to read and gets the job done. I was already familiar with a lot of the topics though so I didn't learn much. It's a great book to read if you're new to the topic though. I thought the little bio at the end was a nice touch. Also I noticed a few typos which is very bothersome to me.

Have always questions the myths of the religion in which I was raised and this author reinforced some of the reasons for the questions I have considered about what was taught to me from childhood. Enjoyed the read.

This essential text is a must read for both those questioning their faith and those who seek lucid answers to questions about the existence of God. Navabi tackles 20 of the most commonly held views about God's existence and provides an arsenal of logical responses to those who challenge the views of the non-believer. It is my fervent hope that one day texts such as this will be a recommended read for every schoolchild, in the hopes that eventually young minds can develop unhindered by the lies, myths and deceptions of religion.

The book is an exceptional overview into the rationale of an atheist point of view. Short, clear, concise and well referenced, it is the book I would write if I had the ability or inclination. It puts forth a great logic based case as to why all things (including deity warship) must be looked at with one's logic based hat on, and rejected absent hard tangible evidence. Faith for the sake of faith is a dangerous proposition in any aspect of life, and I believe the stakes are higher when it comes to religion, which is wonderfully pointed out in the book. For most faith will always override logic and scientific observation; thus, I doubt many faithful will be moved; nonetheless, this writing spoke my language in a manner I wish I could do myself and I am a fan.

Loved this book. I'm new to the world of atheism and this book helped me realize I'm not alone in my thinking. It gave me great insight into my new ideas and thoughts. I've re-read it a couple of times. Thank you!

This is an excellent statement of the basic arguments against the validity of proof-less faith in religions. Does it hurt anyone to believe? Believe that some higher power is cuddling you? Or protecting you against anything going wrong in your life? Or guiding the human race toward better lives across the globe? Or selecting for glorious "afterlives" those who believe what one preacher or pope or imam says and condemning the rest of humanity to everlasting hell because they were born in the wrong house or wrong country? Well, yes, it does, when it keeps people from taking responsibility for their own lives and results. Or when religious views are trumpeted by feckless presidential candidates as more important than individual constitutional rights, as in a loving couple's right for the legal benefits of marriage regardless of sex, or the right of a woman to decide matters of her own body and her ability to successfully nurture a child to adulthood. Or when we think nothing of dropping thousands of hard-earned dollars into collection plates to fund huge buildings that perpetuate the myths... Read this book. None of the arguments supporting religion hold water.

The author has done a comprehensive and logical analysis of responses to those who use their beliefs to insist there is a god. For those who struggle with answering or refuting the often well-meaning, but unfounded remarks throw at them, this easy to read book provides a realistic and invaluable guide. Whether an atheist or agnostic seeking factual basis for comment, this book offers the solutions. However, it is by no means a way to convert others and that is not the intent. Excellent reading.

The story of Admin Navabi's anguished search for objective, reasoned confirmations of the religious beliefs defining his identity, shaping his life, and giving purpose to his existence mirrored my own story. His brief examinations of the most prevalent arguments for the existence of the God of Abraham, Jesus, Paul, and Mohammed reflected the same process that engaged me for many years; indeed, a process in which I'm still involved at age sixty-eight. Most of all, what this book offered me is comfort in knowing that I am not alone in the angst of trying to nourish relationships with beloved family and friends who are committed, practicing, traditional Christians; glean worthwhile life-lessons from the treasured myths of our salvation history; honor and accommodate my own experiences; have the courage not to "fake it" without alienating those fellow sojourners with whom I am united in compassionate love and hope. The path is not clear; yet, what other road allows personal integrity?

A very good, easily understood, clear and concise debunk of the existence of any universal 'living' God. Whatever name is given to it. Lots of good tools in this book to totally dismantle any religious argument in support of God, if you could be bothered.

This book is amazing! All of the atheist arguments you will find on YouTube are in this book, with great detail. Easy to read and Armin cites all his information directly after each chapter. I found that helpful as I have referred to them when I wanted more detail. I highly recommend this book to anyone curious about religion.

I found the book to be well written and the arguments / explanations presented in a simple format. The text presented logical and reasonable arguments to refute the claims of the religious among us. I was especially appreciative of the respectful manner in which the information was presented. There was no hint of negativism in the text toward believers. I have not seen the religious as generous toward us.

Why There Is No God is a thorough examination of the of the arguments that religious people attempt to use to justify their beliefs in god. This book brings much confidence to the atheist that wishes to engage in conversations with believers.

This book was a great start. It gives very simple points and counter points using logic. I was expecting a deeper dive into some issues. Nonetheless it is an excellent book for someone looking at some logical answers to some common arguments.

Why there is No God, I received this book with an already open mind about all forms of religion (having studied multiple theistic and secular concepts in the past) and I would have said I was not an atheist, yet a follower of self enlightenment through the process of epistemology. Reading this book further strengthened my resolve to continue following the idea of self aware contemplation of the nature of causality. I felt that Armin within the pages of this book conveyed to any individual (of any intelligence) a solid and concise foundation of philosophical reason using logic to assess and discuss any of the major claims made by theistic individuals. This is to say that his methodology of expression is quite effective and provocative to guide and refer within the contexts of any theistic debate. While the idea that any 'religion' (or concept of reality not based on empiricism) should be bound to the same level of scrutiny that any other concept used to describe the nature of reality is not Armin's idea, he does an exceptional job of using logic to discuss the various issues based on common arguments for indoctrinated 'religious' belief. Certainly as an outspoken and informed atheistic individual, I shall sincerely use his work as a basis of argument for many discussion with various religious individuals in the future. Particularly insightful for myself was the assessment of the Transcendental Argument. The logic he employs to make his case is quite convincing and is quite effective within the debate of that issue.

I will say that I felt this book was a bit short and could have done more with some of the specific references to doctrine it used. However the level of dialogue within this work (while sophomoric in its expression at times) is beneficial by making the work accessible and easily digested by the minds of any whom pick it up and actually contemplate the concepts within. All together, another solid read for those whom are curious and willing to think instead of following the leader toward certain death.

I sincerely hope that this work is regarded a significant piece in the effort to remove religion from the lexicon of humanity. The pursuit of truth and logic must be the paramount if our species is move past the barrier of ignorance set forth by the generations of believers.

Awesome book! Armin Navabi's "WHY THERE IS NO GOD: 20 Responses to Common Arguments for the Existence of God," is clear, concise, and to the point. This book should be read by everyone, both unbelievers and believers. My personal journey is similar to Navabi's. Only, I grew up in a traditional Portuguese family where Catholicism was instilled in me at a very young age. I remember having to kiss a crucifix and even the local bishop's ring during Confirmation, a ritual Catholic children must undergo at age 13. I struggled with guilt every time I slipped and committed a "sin," by failing to attend Mass and when I let my "carnal" nature get the best of me. I was told I would go to hell if I committed such sins as telling a lie or having sex before marriage.

As I grew older I began to question what seemed to me to be dubious religious beliefs and practices. It took me many years of searching to find the truth. I wish this book was available when I started my search. It would have saved me much valuable time. Instead, I wasted many years of my life jumping from denomination to denomination in search of the truth. As it turned out, I ended up rejecting Christianity and all other religions.

Furthermore, it is great to see a former Muslim come forward to expose the the fallacies of religion. Most books of this nature are written by former Christians. We need more people like Navabi who are willing to risk everything to expose religious falsehoods. I look forward to reading Navabi's upcoming books.

I found this book to be very simple to read and it was very informative. Counter arguments to the existence of god are presented in a way that don't sound disrespectful or condescending when having a discussion with a believer. As an atheist I often find it difficult to express myself in ways that can be easily explained and understood when talking to believers about god and religion. This book makes it simple to get the message across. Highly recommend it to everybody.

A well written and structured book which answers with clarity and plenty of solid scientific references mind puzzling questions on religion. What is most important is that the author, an ex Muslim has the courage and strength to take this significant step forward against all odds which makes the whole task per se a brave an admirable act.

This book offers something that we don't get as often as we should from the atheist community. It offers a look into the mind of your everyday average atheist rather than being an academic offering such as what we see from men such as Harris or Dawkins. It offers those who are not very knowledgeable about atheism and atheists in general a chance to see the logic behind our disbelief. While these questions are not necessarily the "best" arguments offered by theists, they are very common ones that your average non-acedemic theist might pose. He does a good job of answering these common questions and laying out the reasoning behind these answers.

If you are new to atheism, whether you've recently accepted yourself as an atheist or if you're a theist who wishes to better understand atheism and the atheist mind, I highly recommend this title.

Armin Navabi's book was short, concise, and on target. I like the fact that he has references throughout the book. I also found some of the quotes in the book were supportive of his arguments. I booked marked several area's for future reference, and more than likely I'll be using it quite sometime for reference also. Thank you Armin.

I bought this book hoping to more fully understand why I and humans in general were drawn to a supernatural explanation for life events. What this book did is put into words the feelings I had as a teen, and questioned my Christian upbringing. I did not get what i expected, but that is more than OK. It is a short read but a good one for people who have questions about their faith, or who lack faith and want to express why.

This is a well thought out book. For anyone questioning the concept of a god, wondering why someone would question, or just looking for more information on the topic, this book is an excellent starting point. It has very clear, concise arguments for why gods and religion make no logical sense. Great read.

Pros:
Easy read (More or less a good thing).
Good counter-arguments for a lot of religious debates.
Cheap book.

Cons:
Printing wasn't very good.
Many words were smeared.

Overall:
I enjoyed the book pretty well. I would suggest it to most people that question religion.

Presenting a well thought out refute to the twenty most common arguments for belief in a God provides all atheists with clever arguments at hand. I have used much of this in long, oftentimes heated, arguments myself, and am pleased to learn new ways to phrase these. A great and brief read.

1. To the point, concise.
2. Timely and needed discussion as religion directs the powerful of nations toward global conflict.
3. Unfortunately, those that need to read and contemplate such discussion as this book covers about religion are the least likely to do so.

As an atheist I really appreciate this eloquently written book with fine arguments for why there's NO god!! There's nothing more refreshing than a logical and scientific view point, I only wish Armin Navabi would write more books in the same genre.

Even though I am a believer, this reading had me thinking. It is very interesting to see someone who claim to be an atheist, but actually present references and evidence. Honestly, I really admire the author because of that. Can't wait to read his next book about christianity.

This is the perfect introduction to non-belief for both the curious and the convinced. There are PLENTY of resources and websites referenced in the book for further investigation, so feel free to question everything.

In my opinion, this book is written very concise, in simple sentences in which it's very easy to get points, and specifically, almost every concepts and explanations are followed by a simple and clear example which makes more sense and the concepts easier to understand.

Short and Sweet--The book explains a lot of questions with examples in a small easy to read book--Condensed to the max--Good to give to friends--good way to get people to look at other Authors on the same subject--The God Delusion--Richard Dawkins--Christopher Hitchens--God is not great--all good reads--even if your a believer, open your mind it won't hurt you--knowledge is supreme--

It was a pleasure to read such a well-researched book, so concisely written, and so very clearly written.
Armin Navabi's book can be used to reinforce and assure Atheists and Agnostics of their thinking.
I used to try to confront my religious acquaintances with some crude versions of Navabi's book.
I have given up in the confrontation business. All that is needed is to offer this little book to them,
and if they read it, my views will be clearly presented. If they reject these views, well, the
childhood inculcation is too strong to overcome logic and reasoning.

I read the book today and found it to be very well written and fairly comprehensive for the unbeliever, providing sufficient debate material. For the believer, it should cause much self examination and questioning.

A very well done summary of all of the most used arguments for the existence of god, and why those arguments don't stand up. This book is concise with its explanations and very accurate. I consider myself to be a very well read and knowledgeable Atheist, but I was able to pick up more than a few extra bits of fact in this book. It a great read for anyone who thinks of himself/herself an Atheist, Agnostic, or Anti-Theist. It will strengthen your case. Will it change a religious person's view? It would if that person is logical, but if they were logical they probably wouldn't be religious in the first place. I highly recommend this book.

This is an exceptionally well-thought out and clearly written volume. I've done extensive reading in the subject area, but found this book to be one of the most helpful volumes I've encountered. Navabi writes without condescension, (I doubt I could have maintained a fair and neutral tone), and chooses his arguments carefully. He addresses 20 positions that are well-chosen and self-evidently at the core of the perennial debate. "Why There is No God" serves both the newcomer and the seasoned thinker by presenting its arguments succinctly and with marked insight. Highly recommended to anyone with the desire to more deeply understand the issues at hand.

I haven't read much atheist literature, so I found this book to be really fascinating. Having been raised in a fundamentalist household where questioning the Bible was off limits or answered with "you must have faith" (but never a concrete answer), I feel like my questions were finally answered with the truth. In my opinion, the easy-to-understand book is made more interesting because it is written by a man who was a die-hard Muslim, but when he began to intensely research religion, he found grievous inconsistencies, errors and problems that just didn't add up. The author has other books that specifically call out the problems and contradictions with Christianity and Islam, which I will definitely be reading soon too.

I've read only a few books on atheism and this is one of the first and I'm glad I read it early on. Having read other reviews, I would agree that it is an 'introduction' book, but it is a good one at that. I appreciate that he has written it for both the atheist audience and for believers as well. Links and sources are great.

Concise, informative, and overall helpful for the average theistic confrontation. Read the whole thing the day I got it; I thoroughly enjoyed it, and would definitely recommend for non-believers, people who are questioning their faith, or even a doubtful theist.

Navabi presents a compelling summary for defending atheism. The book is a fluid read with a solid rebuttal for common assertions for proving a personal god exists. The book chapters are beautifully succinct yet surprisingly thorough. In one small book you have a profound and effective response to all the religionist's arguments for a God.

It would be interesting if just once a true believer would take the time to refute (in some detail) each of the author’s 20 responses to the common arguments for the existence of God. Instead, these one star reviewers apparently feel their HEADLINES and “comments” (below) should be enough to convince you:

NONONONONONONO
“this is rigged junk. there is a God. this is dumb ****. they have no idea what the are talking about. Jesus is the answer. He>I”

THE BIBLE IS THE CORRECT CHOICE
“If there were such a thing as minus a million stars, I would give it to this book. Anybody with half a brain would know that Jesus is the answer. Do NOT get this book. Choose the Bible instead. There are NO absolutely NO facts about evolution. Only theories. People say it's true not because it is true, but because it's what they want to hear. A science book has to be updated every 10 or so years. The Bible has never needed to be updated. Evolution is so dumb! For instance, go outside and look around you! Look at all the beautiful trees and plants and animals! Look at yourself! Every part of your body specially designed to work together! How could all this just some day pop up in the universe without a Creator to carefully and perfectly create it? It couldn't! God had to make it. There is a God. I hope everyone who read this book and actually liked it comes to see that some day. I don't believe hell is a fun place to be.”

SIMPLY NOTHING HERE. REHASH OF COMMON ATHEIST BOOKS …
“Simply nothng new here. Rehash of common athiest books with liberal borrowing from established authors. Credits given to Hitchens, Sam Harris, etal…explained in a slightly different way to avoid plagiarism”

WASTE OF TIME TO READ
“A simple restatement of arguments easily found, and more eloquently argued, elsewhere. Completely derivative.”

ONE STAR
“It didn't come close to convincing me. With all my experiences in over 60 years, it provided no truth, even though I was open to new ideas.”

WASTE OF TIME TO READ
“waste of time to read, full of nonsense statements. illogical reasoning, just plain dumb literature.”

SO THE HUMAN MIND HAS COMPREHENDED GOD IS NOT. OH….THAT IS INTERESTING….?
“When men indulge in disproving God, they must be sure that their little finite minds can fully understand the wonder and grandeur of the Universe and the Infinite Creator. IF God were small enough for "thinkers" to grasp Divine Wisdom that science has only begun to uncover........He would be too small to have made them. ha!
Such thinkers are worshiping the human mind........which is no match for the God....which is Life Himself. Yea! To say we don't know can be seeking reality; but to suggest they have figured out that He is Not............? .... a wee bit pathetic.....?'

GET THE FACTS PEOPLE. THE AUTHOR IS A LUNATIC
“This book is trash ….. The apparitions in Egypt of Mary the Mother of Jesus Christ are real. It is estimated over 40,000,000 people saw her appearance in-person and on-media …. Obey Jesus Christ.”

This book guides how to question any belief. every person should really question his or her belief before doing something foolish to hurt himself or others. It is written in a very simple English for anyone to understand. I will recommend it to my family, friends and anyone I may engage in a discussion about God.

I found this book very eye opening, to be honest it was like a warm hug of simplicity and knowledge. I suffer from extreme anxiety and panic attacks, and the part of how belief can cause problems with those matters, felt like a wave of relief as though Mr. Navabi knew exactly how I felt. After reading this book I feel more confident in where I stand as far as religion goes, and feel good about it. I live in the bible belt and to be an atheist in a city where I pass six churches on my 15 minute drive home there's always someone who tries to test you and now I have an arsenal of confidence and knowledge to be able to stand ground and be able to fully express how I feel. I want to thank Mr. Navabi for writing this book and hope that anyone who is looking for an easy read to help find their way takes the time for this book.

Being an atheist myself I enjoyed this book to learn different arguments. I enjoyed the perspective of a person being a former muslim to being an athiest. It was an interesting read even though they are not my normal arguments.

I got completely bored and could not finish it. Yes, God does not exist just because the Bible says so because, what about the cultures that don't follow the Bible? And yes, just because a "miracle" happened to you, it doesn't proof the existence of God.... Pretty much the book follows this pattern of "just because X Y, it doesn't mean Z." So, it failed to convinced me. It has a couple of valid points but they were not strong enough for me to remember so I can't even say what they were.

Great book! I've been an atheist for around 4 years now. I grew up in a strong baptist house hold so one can only imagine how this went over with the family. For the first two years I was a "closet" atheist. All my close friends knew of course, but as far as my family goes, I left it out. I pretended to be a believer around them just to keep the peace per say. After two years I literally couldn't take it anymore and came out as a non believer to them. As one can imagine it literally broke their heart and relations were rocky for the first year or so. Luckily now they've come to accept it. However we frequently get into theological debates at home. I'm sure all my fellow atheist can relate to the, "You'll find your way back" or "You're just lost" arguments... I also found that EVERY SINGLE argument in Mr. Navabi's book has been used against me at some point or other by a theist. He introduces the common theist argument and responds to it with a logical rebuttal. Each argument is only 3-5 pages and the logic is simple enough so that you don't have to be a philosopher to understand it. Overall I loved it and I will definitely be re-reading it just to make sure I'm prepared when ever a theist want to say that I'm just some poor lost sheep.

The book appeals to my logical side and reiterates concepts I myself held from my early teen years. However, from a religious side it is a bit condescending and even insulting at times. I know that was not the intent of the author but at times his words are very blunt and belittling to any opposing argument. I understand he is completely sure of his argument to the point he can not accept a contradictory one may have merit. But he seems to completely ignore the central tenant that any religious belief is based on faith, and some things just cannot by their nature be proven. IE if God exists his very definition makes him impossible to prove or define until the end so the basic tenant of his book Theists must prove the existence of God and Atheists do not have to prove anything is as flawed to the believer as the believers view that Atheists must prove he does not exist is to him.
His book is well written and is controversial enough that I hope he is no longer anywhere near Iran as I am sure once this comes to the attention of extremists out there he will be in danger.

Quick and easy read. Included things I already knew as well as some points and arguments I haven't heard before, also left out points I think should have been mentioned. The author should have kept going instead of stopping at 20 arguments. I would recommend this book to the average atheist and new skeptics.

I found the information in Why There is No God to be very enlightening and insightful. My major work of study is world history and religious history. 30 years ago when I started studying World history it really didn't take very many years for me to figure out that God was created by man to fit his needs at the time. Although I was a dedicated Methodist prior to my "enlightenment" I soon became a dedicated atheist. This is a great book for reference as I have soooo many relatives who want me back with the rest of the sheep! This book has some great responses and is well worth the price and should be everyone's library. Thanks!

I was delighted to find this succinct, well reasoned examination of how common arguments for the existence of God don't hold up under logical scrutiny. Each of the 20 arguments is back with appropriate citations, and the tone of the book is largely neutral: not attacking theism. Beyond issues of atheism, it is a great example of the power of logical argumentation.

I got completely bored and could not finish it. Yes, God does not exist just because the Bible says so because, what about the cultures that don't follow the Bible? And yes, just because a "miracle" happened to you, it doesn't proof the existence of God.... Pretty much the book follows this pattern of "just because X Y, it doesn't mean Z." So, it failed to convinced me. It has a couple of valid points but they were not strong enough for me to remember so I can't even say what they were.

Great book! I've been an atheist for around 4 years now. I grew up in a strong baptist house hold so one can only imagine how this went over with the family. For the first two years I was a "closet" atheist. All my close friends knew of course, but as far as my family goes, I left it out. I pretended to be a believer around them just to keep the peace per say. After two years I literally couldn't take it anymore and came out as a non believer to them. As one can imagine it literally broke their heart and relations were rocky for the first year or so. Luckily now they've come to accept it. However we frequently get into theological debates at home. I'm sure all my fellow atheist can relate to the, "You'll find your way back" or "You're just lost" arguments... I also found that EVERY SINGLE argument in Mr. Navabi's book has been used against me at some point or other by a theist. He introduces the common theist argument and responds to it with a logical rebuttal. Each argument is only 3-5 pages and the logic is simple enough so that you don't have to be a philosopher to understand it. Overall I loved it and I will definitely be re-reading it just to make sure I'm prepared when ever a theist want to say that I'm just some poor lost sheep.

The book appeals to my logical side and reiterates concepts I myself held from my early teen years. However, from a religious side it is a bit condescending and even insulting at times. I know that was not the intent of the author but at times his words are very blunt and belittling to any opposing argument. I understand he is completely sure of his argument to the point he can not accept a contradictory one may have merit. But he seems to completely ignore the central tenant that any religious belief is based on faith, and some things just cannot by their nature be proven. IE if God exists his very definition makes him impossible to prove or define until the end so the basic tenant of his book Theists must prove the existence of God and Atheists do not have to prove anything is as flawed to the believer as the believers view that Atheists must prove he does not exist is to him.
His book is well written and is controversial enough that I hope he is no longer anywhere near Iran as I am sure once this comes to the attention of extremists out there he will be in danger.

Quick and easy read. Included things I already knew as well as some points and arguments I haven't heard before, also left out points I think should have been mentioned. The author should have kept going instead of stopping at 20 arguments. I would recommend this book to the average atheist and new skeptics.

I found the information in Why There is No God to be very enlightening and insightful. My major work of study is world history and religious history. 30 years ago when I started studying World history it really didn't take very many years for me to figure out that God was created by man to fit his needs at the time. Although I was a dedicated Methodist prior to my "enlightenment" I soon became a dedicated atheist. This is a great book for reference as I have soooo many relatives who want me back with the rest of the sheep! This book has some great responses and is well worth the price and should be everyone's library. Thanks!

I was delighted to find this succinct, well reasoned examination of how common arguments for the existence of God don't hold up under logical scrutiny. Each of the 20 arguments is back with appropriate citations, and the tone of the book is largely neutral: not attacking theism. Beyond issues of atheism, it is a great example of the power of logical argumentation.

I think it's a great book for anyone to read no matter what you believe about God. The arguments are logical and respectful. I didn't see it as an attack on religion, rather a challenge to common arguments you hear for the existence of God.

I would say this is well done. It is obvious for me but for people that are experiencing Coginitive Dissonance sould read this book. You will understand just how stupid the christian argument is and understand their logical fallacies.

This book provides a good summary of faith vs. facts about the existence of supernatural beings or Gods. Problem is that once the Gods cannot be supported by facts the believers resort to the fact that they just know or in most cases refuse to discuss.

This is not an earth-shattering book. Most atheists will find the arguments familiar. I think this is a good book for people who are uncertain about what they believe and need some moral support. Navabi's presentation is direct and clear. I also appreciate that it is not the sort of inflammatory rhetoric we get from Dawkins and maintains some amount of respect for people of faith. This is a good beginning for people who question their faith and want to know more. Also, a good place for the faithful to learn to understand more about the atheist mindset.

This is a good read. A good guide for comebacks to religious questions and lies. For me it was just a refresher as I am already very rehearsed in my comebacks but it was great to be able to test my knowledge against the standard established in this book. I really enjoyed reading the life struggles of the author.

I found the book to be easy to read and understand. The information helps me to respond to believers who are unafraid to discuss the subject.
I would however like to hear your opinion on how to deal with people who are terrified to tell why they are believers. I also hope that your future books talk about the old testament and its compact on world religions.

Armin Navabi's book is a fine introduction to atheistic and agnostic thought. I've read dozens of books on the subjects, and I wish this was one of the first ones I picked up years ago. I interrupted an excellent Richard Carrier book to read Navabi, because truth be told, my brain was beginning to hurt halfway through Carrier. This book is a simple read, which is one reason it's a pleasure. I can now return to Carrier rejuvenated.

Navabi's writing style is clear and sustinct. He's passionate about the subject but (refreshingly) doesn't spit the vitriol many other unbelieving authors do. It was a joy to quit viewing the topic trough an academic lens and read an intelligent author simply treating you like a friend over a cup of coffee.

Now I gotta get back to Carrier.

I have not read this book yet but I thank you so for writing it, this topic has distroyed relationships with family and friends, to the point where my mother told me that she would feel a lot safer for my well being if I was locked in a patted room, that crushed me because all my life I have watched over my mother my entire child hood I tried to convince her to quit smoking but she never did and with all the evidence I could give her she just stuck to her way and that is exactly how she is with religion I could go on and on with her, debate that religion is a joke but just because my grandmother raised her to believe my mother is convinced that god is the only answer, Its a very depressing world out there and if there was a God I wouldn't worship him.

A succinct, in-control style of writing certainly helps the author make his case on one of the most difficult, indeed treacherous questions about life and living.. What impresses me about Armin Navabi's succinct writing is that with each question or objection he answers, you feel follow-up questions framing in your mind, counter-arguments emerging and a simple desire to look a bit more deeply into everything.. Quite frankly, that is the best way to feel about a book. This is a book promoting not conversion, but further inquiry - and how exciting that journey is!

It would be a nice read for someone wanting to try to understand an atheistic point of view, coming from a background of belief. But for the better read, it simply rehashes arguments made by many other authors.

An extraordinarily straight-forward book that is for the masses. For anyone questioning the god question, this is an excellent resource. It's approach is sensible and not offensive. It's as if the lights have been turned on and I can observe the actual light, not some theory of light. There are well annotated chapters that offer deeper research for those who want more. In the past, I've enjoyed Christopher Hitchen's 'God is Not Great' book, but it's heavy and takes time to read through (yet, a great read!). In this common-sensical approach, it makes me think that this should be required reading in schools, to allow those who have questions and doubts to feel comfortable in their journey. Atheism to many is perceived as a dirty word, and to some as evil... I was somewhere in the middle growing up Christian. Early on I had simple questions, as to why dogs can't go to heaven and ultimately, in my 50 years, I have had many many more. And even though in my mind, I was atheist, I couldn't quite bring myself to saying it and owning it. This book gave me courage and the knowledge to be comfortable in my own atheism. My opinion is the world would be a more peaceful place if more people sought understanding and accepted what we know to be real.

This is a phenomenal book. The author brings up extremely great points which really makes you think and helps you defend yourself when coming across a religious person. WARNING: IF YOUR A BELIEVER, YOU WILL BECOME AN ATHEIST.

This is a wonderful introduction to the typical talking points in any debate between theists and atheists. I have had to face almost every one of these arguments in one form or another and I can definitely recommend this book for anyone who hasn't had the rhetorical and logical training needed to convincingly answer these arguments. As a graduate student with an undergraduate degree in Philosophy I have had to deal with most of these proposed arguments for god along with their more developed relatives and I will say one of the strong features of this book is that while the author presents the arguments in their simplest forms every argument I have faced eventually traces its origins to assumptions arising from one of these arguments. I can't wait to read Navabi's treatment of christianity specifically as it is sure to be well worth reading.

This book does not actually argue why there is no God; it only responds to several old and weak arguments in favor of the existence of God. Nowadays there are much stronger arguments available in favor of God's existence: I suggest the work of René Girard.

One does not have to be a well-seasoned student of the Bible to debunk what this book has to say. One just simply has to sit with the two books in front of them and compare what the Bible actually teaches to what the author of this book is attempting to achieve. The author of this book does not know the Bible or what it teaches. His viewpoints and arguments are very weak. This book would be meaningful to someone who does not know what the Bible teaches - but, I would highly suggest that someone not base their decision on whether or not there is a God on what this book has to say. It puzzles me.. If someone believed in the Easter Bunny.. I wouldn’t go to great lengths (if any length at all) to try and prove them wrong. Why? Because the Easter Bunny does not exist. But, when it comes to God.. some will spend a lifetime voicing and blogging their arguments and in some cases like this.. actually write a book. My question to them is this.. If God does not exist.. then why are you wasting your time trying to prove it? I believe the real battle is not between the atheist and the Christian.. but, between the atheist and God.

I really enjoyed this book as sometimes it's hard to explain answers to these questions in such a clear and to the point way as Armin does. An excellent work a must read for every atheist! I would caution the religious reader to only consider reading this book if you really want to understand what and why atheists feel and think about the existance of God, but be warned your faith and belief are in grave danger if you have any capacity to reason or understand critical thinking.

Simple overview of some common arguments for the existence of a god and the reasons why those arguments don't really hold water. Well-written and referenced, with some links to external sites. Best for an introduction to the subject, as many who have engaged in this exploration for a length of time may find it overly simplistic and just a rehashing of the same-old same-old. Still valuable as Navabi does provide a few unique takes on what are otherwise common arguments.

I gave it two stars because it is easy to read, short, and to the point, but overall it came off as written by someone with no actual background in the fields discussed (religion, history, philosophy, or science). I read it in one sitting which I think made the flaws more noticeable- for example he says that anything that can not be proved by science is worthless but none of his dialogue on morality meets this criteria ( he says finding what makes the most people happy is what is right but condemns religion for using the same argumentum ad populum logic in another chapter). He brings up deism and pantheism early in the book and says some of his arguments can not stand against these two theistic outlooks but he will address it late- later he just dismisses them by saying they are similar to atheism anyway. He clearly knows more of Islam than Christianity and makes many issues that a novice in the religion would easily refute (he cherry picks the Old Testament on certain rules when it fits and ignores the text Christians regard as triumphant, the New Testament). He appeals quite often to emotion rather than fact which is frustrating and when he seems to not know a lot on the topic, the chapter abruptly ends. He misunderstands the cosmological argument, which is strange because it originated from Islam, as well as misunderstanding the appeal to laws of logic as transcendent, he actually makes the case the theist is trying to make by showing they laws of logic appeal to a high order- he used terrible examples here (a rock can't also be an apple. Actually it can if it is a stone sculpted in to an apple but I overlooked this for what he actually meant to say). This book may be good for someone who has no other insight in to atheism or theism, but most undergrad philosophy students would find this text lacking.

At age 10, I had a classic out of body experience during a sudden illness. No time to imagine, on Oct. Thrust into it. If I exist, that experience did as well. It trumps these intellectual exercises. Nonetheless, this book sharpens our thinking. Bravo.

Having read the book I can understand why it has received so many high ratings. It addresses common arguments for God from the new atheist perspective. The reason I was so critical of this book is because out of the 20 questions I'd say about 13 of them are straw men that can easily be torn to shreds and are not arguments theists would ever use in the academic arena. And for the truly academic arguments they are approached and answered with such brevity that I don't think they are fleshed out nearly enough and given true justice.

For me I was expecting a book a bit more academic and rigorous and this book is neither. However, because of the simplicity and accessibility it is a book anyone can pick up and understand and that is why it has received so much praise. Bottom line if you're looking to truly deepen you're understanding of athesim vs. theism this not the book for you.

Well, I've just finished reading Armin's book, and I must say, as an atheist, I thought that he did a fine job.

Let's go over the pros and cons of the book together:

Pros:

- The book is succinct, precise, and well-written. Armin's writing flows very well, is not tiresome, does not go out of its way to use unnecessary "SAT vocabulary" and get's to the point.
- The chapters flow coherently, and sometimes build on each other. That's good organization.
- He covers many different questions, and does a swell job of doing it. He does add some subtle nuance to his counterarguments, which was appreciated as a seasoned atheist.
- If you're a seasoned atheist like myself, this book serves as a great refresher.
- If you have friends who are fledgling atheists, agnostics, or theists who are intellectually honest, this book is a great introduction to the topic, and less polemic than say, Boghossian's "A Manual for Creating Atheists," (although I enjoyed that book as well).
- The book is physically well-made, from the cover material, to the cover design, even the paper type.
- There are sources at the end of each chapter for further reading. Again, not only are there sources, but they are at the end of the chapter, which I find more convenient than sources at the end of a book.

Cons:

- It doesn't go into too much detail on any one of the chapters, but this is forgivable because Armin gives a good, concise treatment to all of them. The only ones that I wish had more detail were the ones that considered philosophical arguments for god, like the Transcendental Argument or the Cosmological Argument.

Biggest Caveat:

- In Chapter 14, which features his counterargument to the Transcendental Argument for God, aka TAG, Armin argues that the natural laws are descriptive not prescriptive, and doesn't really give philosophically objective treatment to both sides of the issue. Again, this is forgivable, as the book is meant to be succinct, and approachable for the layman, but the natural laws are not known to be descriptive to the degree of certainty with which he seems to state they are.

Let me go into detail. First off, the "natural laws" aren't even what Armin wanted to discuss in this chapter. He wanted to discuss "the laws of nature." These are two completely different things, but to someone who maybe doesn't have the philosophical background (academically or autodidactically), these are easily confused. I think this small slip up belies Armin's unfamiliarity with the arguments for prescriptive laws, and thus became my only major qualm with the book.

It's a fact that about 76% of professional philosophers are atheists, or are inclined towards atheism. This was demonstrated by the PhilPapers survey recently conducted amongst our top philosophical minds. But it's also a fact that out of 931 correspondents to the question of whether the laws of nature are Humean or non-Humean, 532 said that they are non-humean, or in other words, that they are prescriptive. Only 230 out of 931 said they are descriptive (Humean), and only 169 were "other." Even if you add the non-non-humean votes, that still comes out to 42.9%.

So while it's not a fact that the laws are either way, it is not as cut and dry as Armin presents it. I realize that there may be theistic baggage attached to a philosophical view that the laws are prescriptive, but there are reasons for professional philosophers to believe this. One of the most popular? The miracle argument.

It would certainly be a miracle, by Armin's definition, that the laws of nature (not natural laws) are only descriptions of how the world is, rather than prescriptions of how the world will be. Why? Because EVERY TIME we test a given law, it turns out to be true. That's why we call it a law. It would be a miracle that it's just a description, because if it were, that means there is a chance that that law will not uphold. Now we're not going to get into the difference between metaphysical and epistemic probability, but they do uphold when we test them. Every time. 100% of the time we test a law, it turns out to be true, but we don't want to say that it is an intrinsic part of the universe (that it is only a description from our mind)? I find that dubious. Obviously, there are other reasons to be a non-humean, but I'm just trying to speak concisely to a lay audience.

No material object can travel at light speed. That's not something that is alterable, or just a description. It cannot happen, because that particular law prevents it. The law is prescriptive, but it doesn't necessarily come from a law-giving mind. It just means that, according to non-humeans, there is a metaphysical structure underling physical reality, which is in actuality, not very farfetched. Again, this is not scientific fact. This is a philosophical position, but there is much justification for this position.

I realize this is getting a little deep for the purposes of a review, but it should be noted that this particular chapter had me shaking my head in disagreement. It's not necessarily that Armin is wrong, but that he could have gone in other directions with his argument. He is willing to concede (in argument) that there may be a mind that creates the laws, but that it has no purpose beyond creating these laws. Why not just say that the laws of nature could be part of a rich metaphysical structure made up of mathematical objects that exists more than abstractly? I'm sure Armin would say that mathematical objects are only abstracts of our mind, but again, I would call this into question too. For the laymen reading, abstract means existing only in our mind, sort of like tools for describing the universe (hence Armin's position that laws describe). In opposition to this would be "metaphysically existing" laws and number.

The truth is, just because you're an atheist, it doesn't mean you have to be a materialist. There are things that "exist" non-physically, or so I, and many professional philosophers will contend. And there is a certain irony in saying that abstract objects like laws of nature and mathematical entities are only found in minds. Namely, that it requires a mind to create them, which sounds an awful lot like theistic claims that there is a mind required to "create" these objects, which probably lead to Armin's allowing that there may be a mind that creates the laws. Don't get me wrong, I'm not misunderstanding the position of humeans, I'm just saying that there is a poetic irony here.

But as an atheist, you can be more nuanced than that. You can say that the laws of nature are prescriptive, but that they don't need a mind to exist in. The number 2, as in, the character "2," may not exist without human minds, but what "2" represents is not only true, but arguably a metaphysically existing object. That means it is timeless and spaceless. 2+2 is always 4. A=A is always true. If the laws of logic and hence math are necessarily true, that means they don't require our world (of spacetime) to be true. And if that is the case, then that means they can exist, naturally, without us to think them up. Not to mention, there is what is known as the "indispensability argument," which essentially says we should be committed to the existence of the objects that support our best scientific theories. Well, if you didn't already know, theoretical physics is all math. And this understanding of these mathematical objects allows us to send people to the moon and back. It's not a miracle that these mathematical "descriptions" of reality are true. These mathematical objects are not just abstractions in our mind that seem to fit the universe. They really are part of a discoverable metaphysical structure. Not by empirical science per se, but by pure logic. They exist. Existence doesn't mean "has a physical form." Existence means to "have objective reality or being." The same thing goes for laws of nature. If we're using them in our best scientific theories, we should be committed to their metaphysical existence; and not just say, "oh hm, yeah, it just happens to be the case that the system -called math- that we devised is so accurate that it can predict the path of comets years in advance. Oh yeah, but we evolved for life on the african savannah, not to grasp math or logic intrinsically, but eh, don't worry- our math is still so precise to the nth degree, and allows us to do amazing things."

No. Just... no. There is no coincidence that our brains were somehow able to devise a system that so matches the universe's inner-workings so precisely. We can predict the path of a comet because math and logic (as objects) are inherent to the world. The reason we can't "sense" these metaphysical objects is because our evolution dictated (metaphorically speaking of course) that it wasn't necessary for us to grasp such things. It was completely unnecessary for our survival. That's why metaphysics is so unintuitive to us, but why we can still grasp them conceptually in some manner. It's unintuitive because we were never "meant" to have shot rockets to the moon (as in, the environment we evolved in did not select for that ability), but we can still grasp them "conceptually" with our terrestrially evolved brains because they actually, objectively exist.

Anyway, last statement: a prime-mover may not necessarily be a god. It could be something like the Tao or Brahman, two "things" that aren't labeled "supernatural" nor have wills or minds or anything of that manner. And the laws of logic and mathematical objects could exist within such an entity. This is just an alternative view. You can still be an atheist and be a taoist. I'm going to end things here, but trust me, atheism is more nuanced than mild-nihilism. Just saying.

After all is said and done, Armin accomplished what he set out to do. Provide a book that will get people thinking, help get the critical faculties of theists and agnostics going, and refresh the minds of atheists. 4 stars.

The title is misleading like most books of this nature it gives the implication that the book will lay out evidence of why God does not exist, but it really never presents any strong evidence. It just tears apart obvious misconceptions about the existence of anything that would resemble the God of the Christian Text the Bible and Muslim Text the Quran. No where in the book does he back up the title of his book with any solid quantifiable evidence why a God like power could not exist. The reason that he could not and everyone before him who has tried has not is because disproving or proving god is impossible and in this case the author's efforts were merely a rehash of much more intellectually challenging efforts, i.e. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris. I will continue my search for the ultimate book, essay or other work that disproves the existence of a god like power somewhere in the universe.

an endless parade of straw men throughout most of the very short chapters. weak arguments and even weaker counter-arguments. very little here of any substance. most of the chapters deal with refuting religion, rather than the existence of god. some good points made in some chapters, however it has all been said before by others. an appalling amount of typographical errors. as an atheistic primer it would be ok, but far too basic for anyone else. all in all, 2 stars at best.

Inconsistencies in his logic. One example: on p. 10, he says, "During any debate, it's the job of a person making a claim to provide support, evidence and reasoning for that claim". The title of the book is, WHY THERE IS NO GOD, therefore the burden is on Armin. But on p. 11, he says, "In the case of debates about God, the burden is on the believer to offer support for her position if she wishes it to be considered seriously". Not only is this logically inconsistent, it seems that Armin thinks he gets to make all of the rules and those just happen to favor him. I believe he needs to revisit his proposition and he needs to abide by his own rules

The following is my opinion as I remember it from reading the book some months ago - This is a stupid book. If it ever proved there was no God, or even gave a decent reason for there not being one I guess I missed it. What I did see was the refutation of many reasons people say they believe in God that really are not justifiable, just a bunch of silly statements most of us have heard most of our lives that might be meaningful to whoever said them but really have no bearing on the question of the existence of God. Ah, I just opened the book again and what I saw was the statement that "An unknown cause is not the same as divine intervention". Well who that has more than a 3rd grade education ever said it was? It also contains several unfounded assertions. My opinion is that this is a book for stupid people who don't want to go to the effort to read real books containing real reasons for not believing in God. And FYI for the readers of this review - I am an active and conservative Christian with a moderately extensive, and still growing, library of books and articles on Atheism.

I had an issue with damaged product - The 3 books I purchased were shipped together which was fine with me but the hardback book ended up inside of this paperback damaging the pages and bending up the entire book. BUT this rating is for the book itself.

Great little book short and sweet, It's a quick read and I'm looking to build a little library of books for when my kids have questions on how to respond to questioning pushy religious people. Nothing I haven't heard or debated about before really but I think this will be a great resource for my boys in future.

A few years ago one of my poker buddies made the brilliant declaration, "There are no atheists in foxholes!" As far as he was concerned, that was that, end of conversation. Well, since he's a lawyer and therefore a genius, but I'm just an English Literature Ph.D., and therefore an idiot, I was expected to keep my non-believing mouth shut and keep losing my money, and if that alone isn't proof of God, what is? Although not often speechless, in truth, I was so flustered by the abject stupidity of his foxhole remark, I didn't know what to say. I just sat there mumbling and bumbling and continuing to shovel in my dough.

For the next game, though, I have a secret. I'll be bringing Why There Is No God with me. Not only does Navabi's little manual give a thoughtful, easy-to-understand (maybe even for imbecile lawyers), cogent answer to that very theist (unarmed) missile—"There are no atheists in foxholes!"—he cites and counters nineteen other commonly expressed so-called proofs for God's existence. Each of his responses (I hate to call them counter-arguments because the "proofs" hardly qualify as arguments in the first place) to those nonsensical postulations is expressed in logical, layman's terms—so simply reasoned and stated that even my poker buddy has a (admittedly remote) possibility of understanding (I never hope for persuasion with this group).

In fact, Navabi's answer to that tired, old "foxhole" platitude, as are his other nineteen, is so powerfully simple and concise, I can (and will) make copies of it to hand out to the rest of the guys. Come to think of it, I might just buy copies of the whole book for them. My treat.

Don't listen to trolling naysayers here. I suspect these are spies from the other side who just can't stand the idea of being out-brained.

Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God is a disservice to both atheists and believers.

It does injustice to atheists by providing superficial, terse, and porous responses to common arguments for God’s existence. And almost all of the arguments for God that the author does respond to are purely subjective individual perspectives based upon no actual unique claims of the distinct religions themselves. Why There Is No God does an injustice to believers because, although the book may pretend to reveal how atheists think and help you plan a defense of your beliefs, in actuality, it is a marginalizing, prejudicial, and dehumanizing polemic aimed point blank against people of faith. Ironically, then, Mr. Navabi and religious fundamentalists share a common characteristic—they both seem to believe that their way of thinking is irrefutably correct and the world would be a much better place if others were made in their own image. As a result, this book ends up being a written crusade against all people of faith.

To be fair, the one advantage this book does have is that if you are a believer and are easily thrown off-balance by the responses (or are deluded into thinking that the chosen “arguments” really are arguments), then it is clearly time to define and elucidate what you believe and why you believe it.

In the introduction to Why There Is No God, the author makes clear why he wrote it: “This book is written for atheists, believers and the undecided who find the concept of God an important one to examine critically and worth discussing … Reading this book will allow you to see what many atheists believe and how some people may question the beliefs that you hold. If you plan to defend your faith in discussions, this book can help you understand the reasoning behind the lack of belief in your opponents.” After the introduction, each chapter begins with an alleged fallacy (e.g., morality stems from God) and then evidence is presented in an attempt to debunk it.

The pretense that the author is the “enlightened” who is educating the inferior, substandard, unscientific believers becomes quickly apparent. Mr. Navabi is very adept at segregating everyone who doesn’t think like him. I began reading the book honestly curious to discover what atheists were thinking, but a quarter of the way in, the author’s biased and smug arrogance became detestable. And, in his conceit, Navabi spends so much time arguing that the burden of proof rests on believers that he neglects the logical fallacies in his own responses.

For example, he makes the claim that for atheists, “the only necessary argument against believing in God is simply that there is no evidence that any gods exist.” The error in logic here is that passive skepticism in general is always the least scientific and the most unsophisticated path—the path of least resistance—that requires no investigation and erroneously imparts a sense of certitude to subscribers who are only certain of an unproven anti-assertion. In other words, passive skepticism assumes that because one isn’t aware of any evidence, no evidence exists, and therefore investigation is not required. If the burden of proof always rests on the assertion and not the anti-assertion (i.e., the disbelief of the assertion), then life would become very unlivable, and, for example, disbelieving in climate change would be the “normal” stance as would disbelief in the love of a spouse. In contrast, there is no evidence that God does not exist. The skeptical anti-assertion here would be for me to believe, placing the burden of proof on the atheist.

The Game of Life by John Conway is offered as one example of allegedly how complexity can arise from non-complexity just by following simple rules. Yet, the author never addresses the two 800-pound gorillas in the room: (1) the Game is a closed mathematical simulation, not a biological system subject to chance and all the standard environmental variables that creation is subject to, and (2) the Game had an intelligent creator and a designer who made rules to which the simulation adhered.

Ultimately, I agree with the author’s aim that scrutiny of one’s own beliefs is a sign of a mature mind. And while I’ve always maintained that a post-critical stance is much more advantageous than a pre-critical stance, Why There Is No God does not encourage healthy scrutiny at all but maliciously condemns anyone who even dares to approach the very idea of religion. The penalty for this error is quick, merciless, and cruel.

Navabi writes, “The truth is true even if no one believes it, and untrue claims are still untrue even if everyone believes them.” Amen to that.

And for the loyal legion of delicate subjects that must protect the global campaign of the atheist agenda, feel free to click the “No” button next to the question if this review was helpful. At least we all know that there’s a seemingly intelligent purpose behind your actions, and that it didn’t just happen out of nothingness without reason, without cause, and without an explanation.

A rather mundane repetition of the same ideas, theological inconclusiveness and replies any non-believer has trudged through in order to make his or her decision that atheism is not just an alternative to theology, it is the only reasonable answer to the culture of myth-worship that somehow has not "Darwinned" it's way out of our society yet.

I suppose it makes a good reference for those standard arguments to present to myth-believers, however, most of us who have come to a genuine conclusion in our heads that even the idea of a god or gods is ludicrous already has these arguments safely tucked away in their brain for reference already.

It was worth about the $0.99 spent for the Kindle download.

This book is quite good and fulfills it's promise to define responses to the common theistic arguments. I bought this as an audiobook to listen to while I work in my shop. I am an atheist, a philosopher and an engineer. If one is already versed in the work of Matt Dillahunty, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet etc., there is nothing new here. However, each argument is clearly presented with the associated logical fallacies and a solid, well-reasoned response is offered.

This book does not delve deeply into the technicalities and architecture of the philosophical or empirical arguments supporting atheism or help discover the nuances of apologist's arguments one may find with William Lane Craig and others. However this book is an excellent segue to discover the reasons behind atheistic thought and provides a basic foundation for rebuttal against common theistic arguments.

Interesting read, although a little contradictory and self refuting. The title of the book is "Why there is no God," which, if the author were fair, would imply providing evidence against the existence of God (taking into account that every question in this book is basically replied by the statement that such and such is no "evidence" pointing to the existence of God). The author shields himself from this argument by saying that believers are the ones who should be able to provide evidence for the existence of God. However, in a fair exchange of ideas (if we accept the "burden of proof" principle proposed by the author) every person making an argument should bear her own burden of proof. Instead, Mr. Navabi's sole argument is that, as the existence of God cannot be proved, then "there is no God" (as the title suggests). This conclusion would not seem to follow, as the fact that something cannot be scientifically proved does not mean it does not exist, or that it is an unreasonable concept.
Of course the existence of God cannot be scientifically proved; you cannot scientifically prove that you are "you" either. What or who "God" or "selfness" are cannot be "proved," but that does not mean there is no substance to them, or that they designate something inexistent. Science is not the same as philosophy or theology, and this book fails to make a distinction.
The problem with the book is that, in the end, it falls on the same practices it criticises. While believers are not able to provide evidence for the object of their belief (which is the basis of the author's writing), Navabi is unable to provide evidence to the contrary.

The book begins with the irrational objection to there being a creator when he asks, "If God made everything, who made God." That is clearly one of the most ridiculous questions ever asked. Suppose I say, OK, I don't believe in God. What then is my answer to the question where did everything come from? What is the first cause? The answer they always give is the same. "It has always existed." How does that differ from the idea of an eternal God? Simply put, if the universe had a beginning, and I'm sure that most would agree, then what was the first cause? If everything came from a "singularity", where did that come from? The answer is obvious. It would have to come from a being that exists outside of space and time.
That would be God. It's absurd to have a problem with an eternal God. Everybody believes that something eternal had to account for all that exists. Either an eternal universe, or an eternal God.

Over the years I have read numerous books on the question whether there is a God or not. This little 128 page volume (Why there is no God: simple responses to 20 common arguments for the existence of god by Armin Navabi) is the latest book I have read on this topic.
There are many things I love about this book. For one thing author approaches the subject in a reasoned and logical way.

This text is organized into twenty short chapters covering some of the arguments made in theology for their belief in a supreme being. Each chapter begins with a statement that many believers use to justify their belief. It follows up with the answers. The following is a sample of some of the chapters.

Do not pass up the introduction because it explains who this book is for and understanding the burden of proof and other information. Chapter one covers “Science can’t explain the complexity and order of life; God must have designed it to be that way.” Chapter two answers the claim of “God’s existence is proven by scripture.” Chapter three deals with the claim of “miracles prove the existence of God.” Chapter four expounds on the false belief of “morality stems from God, and without God we could not be good.” Chapter five destroys the false premise that “belief in God would not be so widespread if God didn’t exist.” The remaining chapters provide clear and easy to understand reasons why a belief in a supreme being (God) is irrational. Further, when one uses the principles of reason and logic, along with the discoveries in science, there is no reason to believe in mysticism.

This is a book for anyone who has an open mind and is not afraid to face the facts of reality when it comes to the question of whether or not there is a supreme being. A fantastic read.

Rating: 5 Stars. Joseph J. Truncale (Author: Never Trust a Politician: A critical review of politics and politicians).

This book is well written and very thought provoking. Clearly spells out what Atheism is and is not.
I have been an Atheist most of my life, because I have found it difficult to make sense of the contradicting evidence for God. Armin spells out all of the fallacies regarding religion and the concept of God. I am thrilled that someone has taken the time to explain the concepts behind Atheism. Atheism is not a belief system, it has no precepts, doctrines or bible, instead it is critical thinking in regards to what we have all been told is the "truth", and finding there is no truth in god or religion.

This book offers concise and logical arguments against the existince of God. Many contradictions from Quran and the various version of Bible are exposed and their ill-effects of human beings are detailed.

The book, no doubt, is a quick and an easy read and helps anyone who likes to critically think about their inclination / perception about God.

More on this topic can be found in the following books:
The God Delusion
Why Evolution Is True
The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True - Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design

In his next version, I'd like the author to include 'absurdisms' from Hinduism as well. This might appeal followers of another big religion.

For people in the early stages of questioning “God’s” existence this book is an excellent primer. While others may wish for "more depth" in Navabi’s rebuttals against arguments for the existence of an all knowing, all seeing deity, this easy-to-read book, does exactly what it purports to do. That is, it provides “simple responses”, well-constructed, to common arguments for the existence of “God”. My only criticism would be that many of the responses to common arguments are not really all that simple. Some require application of well-established principles of logic, while others take readers through the careful deconstruction of what for many believers seem perfectly logical philosophical points. Navabi even brings into discussion of how believers can be so thoroughly mistaken by citing relatively recent brain research to explain how easily misperceptions occur and how readily “wired” humans are to search for explanations in the supernatural. I have read several books by well-known atheists, Dawkins, Niose, Harris, to name a few. I am thrilled to have now added Armin Navabi’s book to my library and look forward with great anticipation to his forthcoming books.

I noticed that some people write reviews of books written by non believers, that just copy and paste long winded nonsense filled with Bible quotes with the intent to convince the reader that their belief in the Bible is true. Of course it's obvious that they never bothered to even read the books in the first place. I've seen these reviews by the same people, reviewing several books. Unfortunately, all they do is convince the reader that they are blinded by their beliefs.

I liked this book and highlighted a bunch of phrases throughout each chapter. It was an easy read where one could finish the book relatively quickly if you give it an hour or so every couple days.

I'm sure I'll be able to quote this book to others who wish to discuss the topics covered. I do think the chapters could have been a bit longer with more counter arguments. I would have liked to see more ways to argue against "you just have to have faith" as an answer to any point an atheist may bring up. I think some theists have cop-out responses to valid questions raised in the book, and I would have liked to see how to best go about reaching an understanding on their level.

Overall, great read and I definitely recommend it.

What a quality read! It's so very clear that Mr. Navabi has spent much of his life doing what so few others have; actually thinking. Critically thinking. And to be able to turn those thoughts inward and question your core beliefs is exponentially more difficult when you've been indoctrinated from day one. This is a great place to start if you're beginning to have questions of your own. It categorizes common questions and provides a sturdy base, with additional sources, if/when you want to dig a little bit deeper into a certain area. I just finished it and will be referring back to it early and often. Thank you, Mr. Navabi, for your thoughtful and elegant willingness to help as many as you can out of a lifetime of religious trauma syndrome and away from the childhood experiences that nearly cost you your life.

This book is a great resource for somebody who is questioning their faith. I spent over 40 years of my life as a Christian, and countless years in Bible study at church, and finally realized that I could no longer believe in a benevolent God, or any god for that matter. I wish that I had found this book sooner because Navabi makes so many compelling points. I highly recommend this book to anybody who needs justification for their doubts and would love to share their point of view with aggressive believers.

I am confused. I thought all claims were equal whether positive or negative. If someone believed in a god he should have evidence and if someone did not believe in a god or gods should have evidence. Why do only positive claims require proofs. Why should atheists get a free ride? I am an agnostic atheist

One thing is for sure: I will read this book again. And again. English not being my native language, it was very refreshing to come across a text so concise and straight to the point, easy to understand and follow. I would recommend it to all free thinkers out there, not only atheists like myself, in search of a lucid and conscious point of view on the matter of religion and faith in a god. Many other books have already covered the subject, this one being different in how simple and friendly it is presented.

That's not the kind of book that prepares you against all nonsence (through scientific positions), other than those 20 claims, but I'm sure you will find at least one of them in every discussion about religion. And there you have it: Simple answers, which you can give without being a scientist or philosopher. It's helpful in an other way, than for instance the books of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Co are, because here you have very clear well formulated and structured answers, which are very consistent and don't need a backup like for example Dawkins' or Krauss' arguments, which base on scientific knowledge, or Hitchens' points which often times require deeper knowledge of historic facts and so on.
It's more for Atheists who always wanted someone, to sort intelligently all the important arguments against these statements.
So I can recommend it to every Atheist, who wants to refresh this briefly and enjoy using in a debate.
To all other people: There are enough "classic" books to really convince you of critic thinking, for then coming back to this.

Great book. The world would be a better place without hundreds of 'religions'. The term religion gives these multifarious belief systems an authority they do not deserve. All these belief systems have been invented by mankind not by some mythical supreme deity. Initially invented because mankind was fearful of events they did not understand through ignorance of their environment both locally and the universe. Certain members of mankind then realised that these belief systems could be used to maintain their power over others. The myth that we need a religion to behave in a moral or ethical manner needs to be trashed.

This was an honest search for truth about the idea of God. His journey was with the Muslim God, but he mentions that he also considered other gods as well, and found them to also be fictional. I especially liked the autobiography portion at the end of the book.

This was a fantastic read. I started and finished it on my exercise bike in two days, 90 minutes total. I sincerely hope that this is translated in Arabic as the famous "God Delusion" has. I know that christians in my own family would disregard this book as a reflection of an ex-Muslim man that needs Jesus. However, one of the main purposes of this book is to enhance the ability of a freethinker to explain their stance against religion to though those of any religious faith. Therefore, this book is a success.

I wanted to read the arguments that he was going to make. I'm glad I did because, the arguments made were well-developed. Also, this was an entertaining read. I'm also glad I read this because, I helped me refine my stance on God a little. Even I though I believed in him a little bit, I was unable to find a satisfactory description of him.

Even though I enjoyed this, I disliked the references to Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins. Even I've just one of Bertrand Russell's books, he seemed quite pretentious and irrational. Richard Dawkins doesn't seem better. (I was just reading comments on review for another atheist book. The fourth comment said that the aforementioned author called believers 'hapless' and 'stupid'.)

That said, I still found it a short and easy read. Something noteworthy is how he posed his arguments. He disassembled common fallacies while being respectful to the audience. I think that's an important skill to have because, I've noticed that some people lose any semblance of manners in similar situations.

This is a small book that presents arguments or rebuttals for common God supportive statements. The author is articulate and presents his ideas with a well studied approach that is irrefutable. I have enjoyed our discussions about this book in our book group. Lots of food for thought here and this author is quite the philosopher, presenting his arguments very carefully and logically.

Many books dealing with the subject of God, or lack of God, are written by authors trying to impress their readers by how smart they are. They use big words and complex sentences that make the text difficult to read and understand by the average reader. Armin Navabi's writing is a refreshing, pleasant, well thought out format that makes the points in the book clear and easy to understand. His research and examples provide powerful support to his arguments without trying to wow us with big words such that one would need a dictionary to understand the text. (Read Daniel Dennett' book "Breaking the Spell" and you will see what I mean.) "Why There is No God" is a pleasure to read and it should be required reading by anyone interested in this topic.

I'm specifically reviewing the audiobook version (narrated by Dave Richards). All of the arguments are well laid out and presented by the author. This is a very good book and deserves a 5-star review, and I'll give it one here so I don't downgrade the book.

There is something that bothers me about it though. I'm writing this because it may be a turn-off for some if they are considering the audiobook version. Granted, the audiobook version isn't that expensive, but the narrator is difficult for me to listen to. He seriously sounds like a salesman, or a DJ (not the club DJ, but a "talk with a smile" radio DJ). It's seriously annoying, especially when he talks about serious things with that smile in his voice. It's a bit off-putting. His voice may not bother others, but just don't say I didn't warn you.

Armin Navabi's book is perfect for believers questioning their faith, atheists looking to understand the God debate better, and everyone in between. "Why There Is No God" gives what it promises, 20 easy-to-understand responses to popular arguments for theism, but it also includes an introductory look at important topics like the burden of proof and the notion of being “certain.” Perhaps most importantly, the book accomplishes one other task that cannot go unmentioned: it shows readers the importance of debate itself. Navabi helps readers see that reasonable discussion, even if you don’t intend to change minds, is valuable. And he does it in a respectful way, without appealing to emotion.

This book is incredible!! It is everything that I had hoped that it would be. My favorite paragraph in the book is as follows...

"Widespread belief in something does not make it real, and things can exist in reality regardless of whether you believe in them. Simply stated, the truth is true even if noone believes it, and untrue claims are still untrue even if everyone believes them."

I will read this book 100 more times!! Thank you!!

My best friend and I are not Atheists, and this happened to pop up while I was busy messing around on the store. I haven’t seen him in a while so I thought it’d be nice to get him a present. HE LOVED IT!

My journey towards atheism or maybe my search for the truth started at very young age. I still remember how depressed and helpless I felt after being fed with religious teachings over and over again that it made no sense no matter what. I first became a skeptical person perhaps because the science lessons in school and college made much more sense than sitting in the church. I then became agnostic which then I realized is nothing more different than atheism. I felt much more peaceful and started loving myself without anyone training me to do so. No matter how many times I tried to get back in the sack and be a true Christian I always saw a path that lead to the truth that God is nothing but a man-made concept. This book is the first one I read about atheism and I feel it is a great start. I can't wait to read more books on atheism and explore life in a different perspective. Thank you Armin Navabi.

Armin Navabi is right to point out in Why There is no God that the arguments for God do not prove God exists. Then again, his counterarguments do not disprove God exists; after all, they’re just arguments. (1) To counter each argument for God, he speculates—and often asserts—possibilities that cannot be tested, repeated, falsified, or verified. These are the criteria of the materialist who places his or her faith in the Scientific Method. When Navabi argues for the possibility of “multiple universes” or holds out hope that some “naturalistic process” created the universe, he is practicing faith, not science. (2) Navabi argues that there cannot be a God because “children die tragically young, natural disasters wipe out whole communities and people die from accidents and disease” (36). With this weak argument, Navabi reveals that he knows very little about theology while claiming to comprehend the mind of God. Christian theology claims we live in a “fallen” world corrupted by human beings; bad things will happen. And is it not possible that God, like a parent, allows children to make their own life choices as they grow older? Imagine a parent controlling every aspect of your life, denying you freedom to choose your own course of action, deciding your wants, crushing your quests for fulfillment. If you lived on earth for any length of time, you’ve seen people with controlling parents, and I think most human beings like their freedom—is this not the point of Atheism? (3) Navabi brings up punishment in Hell (ibid.). What kind of God would send anyone to Hell? How about a just God? Do Navabi and other Atheist honestly believe that no one on earth should be punished for his or her crimes? With his relativistic moralism (morals change and fall out of fashion), who would have the right to punish anyone for anything? The seventh of the Atheist’s Ten Commandments is “Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.” The ninth says “there is no one right way to live.” Those two leave a lot of room for people to do evil things to other people without consequence. Drug dealers often say they’re just conducting a business. Can any rational, truthful, scientific-minded Atheist say people are not hurt by drugs? So if Atheists believe in moral relativism, that morals change with time, then there can be no moral standard by which to judge anyone. I bet Atheists draw lines, though. By the way, Hell may not be forever (Hell, A Final Word by Fudge). Atheist are to be “open-minded” (first commandment), so read it. (4) Materialism is a philosophy confronted every day by evidence unexplained by science: origin of life, origin of consciousness, concepts of freedom, mercy, justice, religion, Atheism, human sexuality. Atheists, of course, hold out hope that someday science will find the answer. That sounds familiar to the Theist: “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen“ (Hebrews 11.1). Yeah, Athesits live by faith. Who’d’ve thought? (5) Finally, I address the mention of Navabi’s life story where “Armin launched himself from one of the higher windows in his school” (122). I truly regret his suffering. He must have felt miserable. Many people have suffered as he—and some have attempted to take their lives as well. Oddly enough, they survive and come out believing in God. Navabi would dismiss their experiences as delusion because science cannot validate them, but again, his position is not scientific. Furthermore, the sixth Atheist commandment states the following: “Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.” Neither God nor angels nor demons nor the Muslim religion nor Muslim parents nor any other Muslim “pushed” Navabi out the window—he launched himself: his choice, his decision, his responsibility. And yet he blames Islam (and religion in general) and his Muslim upbringing. You’ve heard this one before: “you wouldn’t jump off a bridge if everyone else was doing it, would you?” I’m thinking (yes, thinking) that anyone or any Atheist reading Navabi’s book might want to consider that one as well as heed the following: “Look before you leap,” especially before leaping into Atheism. (Read Keller’s The Reason for God, Aczel’s Why Science does not Disprove God, Metaxas’ Miracles and a handful of others if you are open minded.)

Even if you are a believer, you should read this book. It is not offensive at all. Instead, it motivates you to think about the reasons for your belief and for the time and effort you devote to your religion. As the author clarifies in the beginning of the book, even if you don’t change your mind, the reading will be valuable for you’ll be at least more prepared to debate with non-believers. And, of course, stopping to think about your beliefs, habits and goals in life will increase your self-knowledge.

I chose to rate this as four stars because of the technical issues . This book needs some editing and proofreading . There are places where words are run together , punctuation is missing and grammar is not most desired .

I like the organization of the book where each concept is separated but also get tied together as a whole .

An excellent book. The mos important contibution of the book is the way it exposes the importance of critical thinking. The best quote: "because you believe it doesnt mean its true". It will be nice if this kind of books have some graphic complement (memes about critical thinking for example). Simple and clear. Just the way we need to expose this kind of subjects.

As a young college student who is just beginning to seriously talk about religion with friends and family, I've been grateful to have this book. This book was short, to the point, and explained itself with just enough detail to cover most topics thoroughly. Sometimes it's easier just to hand someone a short book like this (2 hours long on audible) and let them get some background information rather than start from scratch through conversation. I also appreciate that this book does not try to constantly attack theists or use foul language. I would highly recommend for absolutely anyone.

Easy to read and understand and a good way to prepare yourself how to respond to claims of religious people. For a guy like me who lives in Denmark, I don't hear the (in my opinion) extreme relegious claims very often, because people are not that religious, but it was very interesting anyway.

As someone who has been an atheist for awhile, I have read all of these arguments before, but never in such a concise and easily-accessible manner. In almost all circumstances when I was thinking about a counterargument or a criticism of the argument presented, the book turned directly to that to discuss it. It cites its sources well and in an nondistracting manner. Overall, I really appreciate this as a short primer that I think is a great starting point for a lot of conversations. The only downside is that it feels a little bit too short. I felt like I hadn't had enough mental digestion of the topic before moving to the next.

*Review is for the Audible version of the book*
This was a great little book! Mr. Navabi intelligently addressed many common questions/comments from believers. He explained the necessity of using reason to navigate life. The narrator was a good speaker and had a pleasant voice. I plan to listen to this one again soon. Great work!

I bought this as an audiobook this morning and ended up listening to it in its entirety pretty quickly. I found it enjoyable, but, of course, it always comes back to the same two things: the burden of proof lies on the believer and simply believing in something doesn't make it real. Still, for the beginner atheist, I can see how this would be very helpful.
Perhaps my favorite parts of the book were hearing about what Sagan's widow had to say about his passing and what other famously known atheists had to say about (potential) 'deathbed conversions'. Hearing the author's own struggle at the end of the book was especially touching, too. While my own struggle with faith didn't end with as much physical pain, I had (and continue to have) a pretty extreme emotional struggle in a similar way...while my parents are over there praying for my soul & afterlife, I continue to worry for their current life and he hypocrisy their religion leads them into.

To add my 2¢ to one of the questions that's always posed to me by my parents: "What if you're wrong?", my answer is this: If your god is a loving god, as you claim, then I don't think it would hold my skepticism against me. After all, it's 'son' was SO ok with someone else's skepticism that he allowed that person to put his hand inside his gaping wounds to prove he had, in fact, been resurrected. Additionally, if your god is more willing to allow a believer in to heaven who has lead a significantly less pious or moral life than I have, then that's not a place I want to spend eternity.

I found this book to contain many truths that harmonize with my own personal beliefs that there is no god or supernatural entity or experience of any kind. The arguments presented as ways to debate these views with those that disagree are very convincing when considered in a rational way. However, in my own personal experience I have never encountered a theist who is convicted enough to express their religious beliefs that is also willing to give the least consideration or respect for any opposing (or even slightly different) beliefs. This is not surprising as my parents were a Southern Baptist minister and his wife whose sole value of other peoples worth (including my own) {was} based upon their perception of the validity and extent of their commitment (specifically) to the Southern Baptist doctrine. WOW! That sounds SO self-absorbed to say but is said in all sincerity after many years of analyzing the situation as objectively as I can. I myself had an epiphany at the age of 12 (though I struggled with this knowledge for many years). It seemed very simple at the time and required (for me) just this one realization: With so very many religions now and past, all claiming to be the only "true" religion, how likely is it that only or any one is true? Very unlikely. With so many variations (denominations) within each religion all claiming to be the only "true" variation, how likely is it that only or any one is true? Nearly impossible. With virtually each church within a denomination varying on what they claim to be "true", how likely is that? With each individual picking, choosing, adopting, rejecting, inventing and developing their own religious ideas they each claim to be true, how likely are they to be true? My conclusion was that belief in any deity or even an aspect of such a deity is absolutely impossible. But this is supposed to be about your book, not me. My point is that I feel much more educated than the average person on the content of the Christian bible, Christian doctrines in general and the doctrines of several Christian denominations. Though I can coherently and sympathetically communicate multitudes of fallacies, discrepancies and contradictions within these doctrines I have yet to have ever been given the chance to do so. Whenever a so-called "debate" of religious beliefs is initiated - always by the believer - the others objective is always to convert, never to listen or even to consider. These discussions have always ended rather abruptly when my own conviction, rather than my doubt becomes evident and the other makes an ungracious retreat either by declining to concede even the possibility of any fault in their own beliefs, refusing to allow me to talk, or withdrawing from the conversation with the equivalent of "I'll pray for you (you despicable, evil agent of Satan). Perhaps unfortunately I now decline to initiate and to no longer be dragged into conversations of this kind any more. I had hoped that there might have been an approach in your book I had not considered that could open a crack in the vault door of closed religious minds but was unable to find one I have not used before myself. I feel that no argument for / of reason will have any appeal on the vast majority of convicted theists as rejection of reason is a prerequisite for their condition. However, I am sure that there are many others like myself who have or are in the process of rescuing themselves from religious mythology through self reflection. Though your arguments for Why There is no God may be of little or no benefit to the former, I feel it will be helpful - comforting and reassuring - to many of the later.

In this book, a balanced, well founded account is given on why the traditional conception of god and the supernatural is but an ensemble of fallacious arguments that perpetuated themselves along the centuries.
Of note, the author offers a tolerant and open to rational debate perspective, an invitation to reflection and further research to his religious and non-religious readers.
Always from humility and sound rationale, the prose in this test is fluent and the contents are properly organized, from the most universal, ending at the most particular, in a deductive, prescriptive fashion.

This book is extremely informative not only on the most basic reasons why religion is ancient fabrication, but a very helpful tool to learn about the logical rules that should lie behind any sound argument. It helped me broaden my view on many other unrelated topics, and become more of a free thinker, by being able to apply these rules to unmask the many logical fallacies one is confronted with in his daily life.

Therefore, the value of this piece of literature is two-fold, for the price of one. A witty, savvy, smart and simple way to make the foundation of the myths that surround our culture tremble and unveil their futility.

I strongly advice to become acquainted with this book, a priceless instrument to defend one's self against fallacy in popular culture and a sincere invitation to rational inquiry.

I stumbled up this book while reading Christianity on Trial by Micheal Lanier. Armin is clear and concise as he dissects arguments for the rationalizations of religious indoctrination. This book is a must read for Believers and Non-believers.

Using a scientific approach and untethered logic, the author does not engage in semantics or involve any belief system above any other- they are all without a God- but he makes certain not to negate the positive impact a religion could have

This is a concise and relatively simple rebuttal to the most common arguments aimed at atheists by believers. There are more detailed books tackling similar topics out there, though the more verbose, the heavier going. This is an easy to read, easily referenced, and superbly argued piece that I have found to be invaluable when confronted by the religious who are determined to 'prove' their god exists.

Armin Navabi's `Why There Is No God' is an excellent resource for believers, non believers and those undecided. In his book, Armin addresses arguments in a non biased manner, which makes his reasoning much more compelling and professional. If you're looking for a "bible bashing" book, this isn't the book for you. For those newcomers who are either atheist or on the line, it is an excellent stepping stone into secular beliefs. It is a very warm welcome to the global minority that is atheism

Armin implements critical thinking and draws intelligent conclusions based on facts and scientific research. Rather than using deities to explain the unknown, such as our ancient ancestors once did. Science continues to the fill gaps of mankind's greatest questions, leaving no room for god. He emphasizes that natural occurrences are often confused by theist as miracles. Yet the known laws of the universe function independently of beliefs.

He uses sophisticated analogies such as "Russell's tea pot" to illustrate the philosophical "burden of proof", a powerful tool that will forever aide you in religious discussions. This book has reinforced my ideas and has given me more confidence in my beliefs (or lack there of). It's given me practical knowledge to defend and discuss my beliefs amongst believers and non believers alike.

Armin Navabi is right to point out in Why There is no God that the arguments for God do not prove God exists. Then again, his counterarguments do not disprove God exists; after all, they’re just arguments. (1) To counter each argument for God, he speculates—and often asserts—possibilities that cannot be tested, repeated, falsified, or verified. These are the criteria of the materialist who places his or her faith in the Scientific Method. When Navabi argues for the possibility of “multiple universes” or holds out hope that some “naturalistic process” created the universe, he is practicing faith, not science. (2) Navabi argues that there cannot be a God because “children die tragically young, natural disasters wipe out whole communities and people die from accidents and disease” (36). With this weak argument, Navabi reveals that he knows very little about theology while claiming to comprehend the mind of God. Christian theology claims we live in a “fallen” world corrupted by human beings; bad things will happen. And is it not possible that God, like a parent, allows children to make their own life choices as they grow older? Imagine a parent controlling every aspect of your life, denying you freedom to choose your own course of action, deciding your wants, crushing your quests for fulfillment. If you lived on earth for any length of time, you’ve seen people with controlling parents, and I think most human beings like their freedom—is this not the point of Atheism? (3) Navabi brings up punishment in Hell (ibid.). What kind of God would send anyone to Hell? How about a just God? Do Navabi and other Atheist honestly believe that no one on earth should be punished for his or her crimes? With his relativistic moralism (morals change and fall out of fashion), who would have the right to punish anyone for anything? The seventh of the Atheist’s Ten Commandments is “Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.” The ninth says “there is no one right way to live.” Those two leave a lot of room for people to do evil things to other people without consequence. Drug dealers often say they’re just conducting a business. Can any rational, truthful, scientific-minded Atheist say people are not hurt by drugs? So if Atheists believe in moral relativism, that morals change with time, then there can be no moral standard by which to judge anyone. I bet Atheists draw lines, though. By the way, Hell may not be forever (Hell, A Final Word by Fudge). Atheist are to be “open-minded” (first commandment), so read it. (4) Materialism is a philosophy confronted every day by evidence unexplained by science: origin of life, origin of consciousness, concepts of freedom, mercy, justice, religion, Atheism, human sexuality. Atheists, of course, hold out hope that someday science will find the answer. That sounds familiar to the Theist: “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen“ (Hebrews 11.1). Yeah, Athesits live by faith. Who’d’ve thought? (5) Finally, I address the mention of Navabi’s life story where “Armin launched himself from one of the higher windows in his school” (122). I truly regret his suffering. He must have felt miserable. Many people have suffered as he—and some have attempted to take their lives as well. Oddly enough, they survive and come out believing in God. Navabi would dismiss their experiences as delusion because science cannot validate them, but again, his position is not scientific. Furthermore, the sixth Atheist commandment states the following: “Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.” Neither God nor angels nor demons nor the Muslim religion nor Muslim parents nor any other Muslim “pushed” Navabi out the window—he launched himself: his choice, his decision, his responsibility. And yet he blames Islam (and religion in general) and his Muslim upbringing. You’ve heard this one before: “you wouldn’t jump off a bridge if everyone else was doing it, would you?” I’m thinking (yes, thinking) that anyone or any Atheist reading Navabi’s book might want to consider that one as well as heed the following: “Look before you leap,” especially before leaping into Atheism. (Read Keller’s The Reason for God, Aczel’s Why Science does not Disprove God, Metaxas’ Miracles and a handful of others if you are open minded.)

Even if you are a believer, you should read this book. It is not offensive at all. Instead, it motivates you to think about the reasons for your belief and for the time and effort you devote to your religion. As the author clarifies in the beginning of the book, even if you don’t change your mind, the reading will be valuable for you’ll be at least more prepared to debate with non-believers. And, of course, stopping to think about your beliefs, habits and goals in life will increase your self-knowledge.

I chose to rate this as four stars because of the technical issues . This book needs some editing and proofreading . There are places where words are run together , punctuation is missing and grammar is not most desired .

I like the organization of the book where each concept is separated but also get tied together as a whole .

An excellent book. The mos important contibution of the book is the way it exposes the importance of critical thinking. The best quote: "because you believe it doesnt mean its true". It will be nice if this kind of books have some graphic complement (memes about critical thinking for example). Simple and clear. Just the way we need to expose this kind of subjects.

As a young college student who is just beginning to seriously talk about religion with friends and family, I've been grateful to have this book. This book was short, to the point, and explained itself with just enough detail to cover most topics thoroughly. Sometimes it's easier just to hand someone a short book like this (2 hours long on audible) and let them get some background information rather than start from scratch through conversation. I also appreciate that this book does not try to constantly attack theists or use foul language. I would highly recommend for absolutely anyone.

Easy to read and understand and a good way to prepare yourself how to respond to claims of religious people. For a guy like me who lives in Denmark, I don't hear the (in my opinion) extreme relegious claims very often, because people are not that religious, but it was very interesting anyway.

As someone who has been an atheist for awhile, I have read all of these arguments before, but never in such a concise and easily-accessible manner. In almost all circumstances when I was thinking about a counterargument or a criticism of the argument presented, the book turned directly to that to discuss it. It cites its sources well and in an nondistracting manner. Overall, I really appreciate this as a short primer that I think is a great starting point for a lot of conversations. The only downside is that it feels a little bit too short. I felt like I hadn't had enough mental digestion of the topic before moving to the next.

*Review is for the Audible version of the book*
This was a great little book! Mr. Navabi intelligently addressed many common questions/comments from believers. He explained the necessity of using reason to navigate life. The narrator was a good speaker and had a pleasant voice. I plan to listen to this one again soon. Great work!

I bought this as an audiobook this morning and ended up listening to it in its entirety pretty quickly. I found it enjoyable, but, of course, it always comes back to the same two things: the burden of proof lies on the believer and simply believing in something doesn't make it real. Still, for the beginner atheist, I can see how this would be very helpful.
Perhaps my favorite parts of the book were hearing about what Sagan's widow had to say about his passing and what other famously known atheists had to say about (potential) 'deathbed conversions'. Hearing the author's own struggle at the end of the book was especially touching, too. While my own struggle with faith didn't end with as much physical pain, I had (and continue to have) a pretty extreme emotional struggle in a similar way...while my parents are over there praying for my soul & afterlife, I continue to worry for their current life and he hypocrisy their religion leads them into.

To add my 2¢ to one of the questions that's always posed to me by my parents: "What if you're wrong?", my answer is this: If your god is a loving god, as you claim, then I don't think it would hold my skepticism against me. After all, it's 'son' was SO ok with someone else's skepticism that he allowed that person to put his hand inside his gaping wounds to prove he had, in fact, been resurrected. Additionally, if your god is more willing to allow a believer in to heaven who has lead a significantly less pious or moral life than I have, then that's not a place I want to spend eternity.

I found this book to contain many truths that harmonize with my own personal beliefs that there is no god or supernatural entity or experience of any kind. The arguments presented as ways to debate these views with those that disagree are very convincing when considered in a rational way. However, in my own personal experience I have never encountered a theist who is convicted enough to express their religious beliefs that is also willing to give the least consideration or respect for any opposing (or even slightly different) beliefs. This is not surprising as my parents were a Southern Baptist minister and his wife whose sole value of other peoples worth (including my own) {was} based upon their perception of the validity and extent of their commitment (specifically) to the Southern Baptist doctrine. WOW! That sounds SO self-absorbed to say but is said in all sincerity after many years of analyzing the situation as objectively as I can. I myself had an epiphany at the age of 12 (though I struggled with this knowledge for many years). It seemed very simple at the time and required (for me) just this one realization: With so very many religions now and past, all claiming to be the only "true" religion, how likely is it that only or any one is true? Very unlikely. With so many variations (denominations) within each religion all claiming to be the only "true" variation, how likely is it that only or any one is true? Nearly impossible. With virtually each church within a denomination varying on what they claim to be "true", how likely is that? With each individual picking, choosing, adopting, rejecting, inventing and developing their own religious ideas they each claim to be true, how likely are they to be true? My conclusion was that belief in any deity or even an aspect of such a deity is absolutely impossible. But this is supposed to be about your book, not me. My point is that I feel much more educated than the average person on the content of the Christian bible, Christian doctrines in general and the doctrines of several Christian denominations. Though I can coherently and sympathetically communicate multitudes of fallacies, discrepancies and contradictions within these doctrines I have yet to have ever been given the chance to do so. Whenever a so-called "debate" of religious beliefs is initiated - always by the believer - the others objective is always to convert, never to listen or even to consider. These discussions have always ended rather abruptly when my own conviction, rather than my doubt becomes evident and the other makes an ungracious retreat either by declining to concede even the possibility of any fault in their own beliefs, refusing to allow me to talk, or withdrawing from the conversation with the equivalent of "I'll pray for you (you despicable, evil agent of Satan). Perhaps unfortunately I now decline to initiate and to no longer be dragged into conversations of this kind any more. I had hoped that there might have been an approach in your book I had not considered that could open a crack in the vault door of closed religious minds but was unable to find one I have not used before myself. I feel that no argument for / of reason will have any appeal on the vast majority of convicted theists as rejection of reason is a prerequisite for their condition. However, I am sure that there are many others like myself who have or are in the process of rescuing themselves from religious mythology through self reflection. Though your arguments for Why There is no God may be of little or no benefit to the former, I feel it will be helpful - comforting and reassuring - to many of the later.

In this book, a balanced, well founded account is given on why the traditional conception of god and the supernatural is but an ensemble of fallacious arguments that perpetuated themselves along the centuries.
Of note, the author offers a tolerant and open to rational debate perspective, an invitation to reflection and further research to his religious and non-religious readers.
Always from humility and sound rationale, the prose in this test is fluent and the contents are properly organized, from the most universal, ending at the most particular, in a deductive, prescriptive fashion.

This book is extremely informative not only on the most basic reasons why religion is ancient fabrication, but a very helpful tool to learn about the logical rules that should lie behind any sound argument. It helped me broaden my view on many other unrelated topics, and become more of a free thinker, by being able to apply these rules to unmask the many logical fallacies one is confronted with in his daily life.

Therefore, the value of this piece of literature is two-fold, for the price of one. A witty, savvy, smart and simple way to make the foundation of the myths that surround our culture tremble and unveil their futility.

I strongly advice to become acquainted with this book, a priceless instrument to defend one's self against fallacy in popular culture and a sincere invitation to rational inquiry.

I stumbled up this book while reading Christianity on Trial by Micheal Lanier. Armin is clear and concise as he dissects arguments for the rationalizations of religious indoctrination. This book is a must read for Believers and Non-believers.

Using a scientific approach and untethered logic, the author does not engage in semantics or involve any belief system above any other- they are all without a God- but he makes certain not to negate the positive impact a religion could have

This is a concise and relatively simple rebuttal to the most common arguments aimed at atheists by believers. There are more detailed books tackling similar topics out there, though the more verbose, the heavier going. This is an easy to read, easily referenced, and superbly argued piece that I have found to be invaluable when confronted by the religious who are determined to 'prove' their god exists.

Armin Navabi's `Why There Is No God' is an excellent resource for believers, non believers and those undecided. In his book, Armin addresses arguments in a non biased manner, which makes his reasoning much more compelling and professional. If you're looking for a "bible bashing" book, this isn't the book for you. For those newcomers who are either atheist or on the line, it is an excellent stepping stone into secular beliefs. It is a very warm welcome to the global minority that is atheism

Armin implements critical thinking and draws intelligent conclusions based on facts and scientific research. Rather than using deities to explain the unknown, such as our ancient ancestors once did. Science continues to the fill gaps of mankind's greatest questions, leaving no room for god. He emphasizes that natural occurrences are often confused by theist as miracles. Yet the known laws of the universe function independently of beliefs.

He uses sophisticated analogies such as "Russell's tea pot" to illustrate the philosophical "burden of proof", a powerful tool that will forever aide you in religious discussions. This book has reinforced my ideas and has given me more confidence in my beliefs (or lack there of). It's given me practical knowledge to defend and discuss my beliefs amongst believers and non believers alike.

I found it to be very a very concise and helpful little book. It outlines some of the illogical thinking employed by many theists, goes through some common arguments for god, and shows the fallacious thinking displayed in these arguments.

This was a very well written, straightforward explanation of why some of the most common arguments for the existence of God do not hold water. I like the tone of the book because it is not confrontational at all, and it does a good job of explaining the importance of evidence and critical thinking in ALL arguments, not just the ones about religion. There is also some discussion of verifiability vs. falsifiability, which can also be applied to any debate regardless of the topic. Very good overview of the subject.

Very good read. The book covered a wide range of arguments that believers may give for their belief and it gives the nonbelievers a good way to explain their counter position.

The best part of this book to me was the last chapter. It spoke about the author's own struggle with religion. I didn't know at first but the author, Armin Navabi, was from Iran. Born and indoctrinated into Islam. Islam is extremely strict on people leaving islam. So imagine how lonely he felt. What courage! I applaud you sir.

I loved the brevity of the arguments so that I was able to read it over a couple of days. It was clear in its statements and widened my understanding of the value of using reasoning and clear-seeing over faith based on fear.
More books like this are needed to help people like me to live in freedom and without the anxiety that arises from thought-based guilt.

The word "author" suggests "authority" - and few can speak with authority on the topic of religion and it's dreadful practice of indoctrination than those who have; through strength of character; managed to emerge with their reason still intact.
Bravo Armin Navabi - and thank you for giving us yet another powerful tool to fight for free thought.

Why There Is No God is a helpful book in many ways. For the person who has questions to the substance of their religion it offers a good range of subjects that they will likely have questions about and provides nice, easy to understand explanations.
For the existing Atheist or Agnostic it is a useful tool to help convey your position. The book covers most of the common arguments used to support religions and provides quick but accurate reasons why they are wrong or at the very least illogical.

I usu don't write long reviews because I hate reading them, but here goes. I loved this book. I have been an atheist for 50 of my 63 yrs, and have read most of the main stream atheist writers. This is the best by far. Who is this book for...for the believer..."reading this book will allow you to see what many atheists believe and how some people may question the beliefs that you hold." ..."this book will help you debate from a more informed position." Frank and honest statements. Won't go into the twenty questions, but for atheists, this is a must read. Shores up our argument. namaste

This book does exactly what it says on the tin. It helps atheists verbalize their views and provides articulate reasons and evidence. If you are not confident that you can express your views you may with hold them rather than appear not fully committed.

What an inspiration Armin Navabi is! Already a confirmed atheist, this little book has given me the confidence to argue my case with others. I loved the simple no nonsense style which was dead easy to understand. I was moved by his childhood experience and what a brave person he has been. I look forward to reading more from him. Highly Recommended.

Good bibliography, worthy reference. I wisely stopped debating about God in college because most people don't like to examine themselves. Socrates said "Know thyself." He was told to stop asking questions.

If you are a believer, it probably is not going to change your mind. But if you are a doubter or seeking a realistic and clearly illustrated introduction to applying logic and critical thinking to some of the normal declarations about a God, this is a nice, pleasant way to start. It is not dogmatic, although the position is clearly understood. Uses good examples.

This is a great read. I have been agnostic for most of my adult life and very secure with all of my thoughts on the concept of god and religion. However I feel even more fulfilled and at times elated after reading this book. Not only did I find reassurance on many of my own thoughts and ideas, I also found sources and facts in this book to back them up. Beyond that I learned a lot of new factual information and theories. The book mentions early on that it can be useful for atheists, believers and the undecided and I completely agree. I strongly recommend it for anyone who is looking for more clarification on their own beliefs in deities and religion.

This book contains nice and brief answers to 20 common arguments for the existence of God. It would have been nice if the Author spent more time on the argument "Prophets have done miraculous things that were witnessed by many. This proves that God is real". The author touches upon in in the argument "God's existence is proven by scripture" but not enough in my opinion.

The book is very well written, and the author is obviously very knowledgeable in religion. the text is sophisticated, but still understandable. It is worth the price, and I highy recommend a purchase.

I chose a five star rating for two reasons. First the writer is philosophically rational throughout , his thought-provoking simplicity is easily understood by anyone that has the courage to read and absorb this writing.
Secondly I earned deep respect to Armin because he carried his message not as a zealot but with humility and style.

I believe that this is an interesting book that makes some good points against religious views. Particularly his attacks against religious experience are compelling. There is a little bit of an unfairness as he argues that there are positive benefits to atheism but then points out against the religious that positive benefits to religion does not make it Truth. As a Christian, I think these arguments can be too generic and I am looking forward to reading his book that specifies Christian doctrine.

I read this book this afternoon and thoroughly enjoyed it. Religion, and the debate concerning its veracity, is an abiding interest and I have read quite a few books on the subject. Like other reviewers have said, this book is a great introduction to the subject. However, it is also a useful tool for someone familiar with the arguments with which to keep them fresh in your mind and your argument toolkit primed. A really useful and highly readable book.

This book follows closely the train of thought I have begun to develop over the past few years. It had no pretense to sway my beliefs, nor efforts to "brainwash" me into a particular thought pattern. It is a concise list of arguments against normal religious thinking, and provides intelligent and informed information for interjection into any religious conversation. A must read for anyone that has begun to question their faith.

Armin Navabi does an amazing job eviscerating the God claim. Using evidence and logic, Navabi addresses almost every topic associated with the idea that God "exists." He wonderfully details the position of atheism with clear and concise language. Many other books detail the arguments of atheism, but rarely do they match the approachable style Navabi shows in this book. We as atheists find ourselves often in debate with theists regarding scripture, origins, morality, and prayer; all of these things are covered thoroughly.

My path to atheism was a long one. Once I came to my conclusion, I wanted to discuss the topic with as many theists as possible. This book would've certainly helped my growth as a young atheist. Do not disregard this book if you think you “know everything” about atheism. It’s an amazing work worth the read.

- J. D. Brucker, author of 'Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis'

Though there are numerous recent books extolling the merits of atheism, and the corresponding irrationality of the case for gods, this short summary is an excellent addition to the canon. It is well organized, zeroes in on the key issues that frame this longstanding debate, and provides the case for atheism in a straightforward and concise manner. It also provides thoughtful citations to give the reader useful starting points to delve more deeply. It is equally useful to both believers and non-believers whose minds are still open to reason. Of special note is the fact that the author begin his journey as a devout believer in Islam, a testament to courage as well as reason.

Halfway through and... about the worst I've ever read. I came in with high expectations seeing as how the book was written by a former Muslim. Muslim's generally take their faith very seriously but this book is shallow at best and so many of the 20 "arguments" for God's existence aren't arguments at all—they are assertions and silly ones at that. You might get this kind of stuff at a church picnic or from folks who have never challenged their faith at all—ever. For any serious thinker who wishes to do more than just irritate and antagonize folks (be a jerk)—anyone who is actually interested in the true answer the the question or heavy arguments against the existence of God—I feel rather strongly that you would only find this book to be a dire disappointment and pretty much a waste of time. Basically, I'm sure there are much better resources for any serious thinker.

This book is written as a "basic introduction" to counter-apologetics, but it even covers many of the more advanced arguments. It won't prepare you for a formal debate with a philosopher, but it can give you a starting point to move from one-liners to syllogisms. Where it excels though is with the "one-liner" arguments that lead to informal debates with friends, family, and strangers on the internet.

I enjoyed reading this book, but was continually reminded of past informal debates I've had.

Fantastic read and easy to follow . I totally agree with all comments. I used to believe myself as a child but growing up questioned it more and more, it's wasn't until working with some strong Christian children I realised this is wrong. They told me I will go to hell for not believing but to me that is a bully tactic to get someone to do/believe what you want them to do. It didn't sit well with me at all.

This book does not promise anything profound or original, and therefore, it is probably only fair to cut the author, Navabi, a little slack. The subtitle of the book is Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God. Navabi does indeed write in direct and easily-understood style. He does not engage in vitriol, which is nice, and tries (it seems) to set out those 20 arguments in a plain, unadorned, and undistorted form, then explain why they are wrong. So far, so good -- if that's what you want.

One problem is that only about half of those 20 arguments actually are both common and actual arguments for God, maybe fewer.

Take Pascal's Wager, which Navabi covers in Chapter 8. Navabi points out that Pascal is not actually arguing for the existence of God with this argument, rather for the pragmatic benefit of believing, if you aren't sure where the weight of the evidence comes down. The problem is, as in most popular recent books promoting atheism, beginning with Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Navabi fails to point out that Pascal does give actual arguments for God, and for Christianity, in the rest of Pensees! (None of which really seem to be covered in the rest of the book.) This wholly ruins Navabi's complaint that Pascal's Wager is undermined by the plurality of religions. No, it isn't, because in the rest of Pensees, Pascal offers a great deal of evidence that points specifically to the truth of Christianity.

Or how about Chapter 17, "Atheism has killed more people than religion, so it must be wrong!" Does anyone actually say that? If they do, why not quote the source of this "argument?" In this chapter, Navabi correctly argues that theism should be compared to atheism, rather than to developed theistic belief systems. But then somehow he concludes that since atheism is merely the "absence of belief" in God -- of course it is not, or the aspen outside my window would be an atheist -- then atheism can never be to blame for anything. Even given the definition, this would be wrong -- an absence of a belief in gravity can kill. He tries to blame religion for Stalin, etc, because Stalin created a "religion-like" cult of personality (equivocating the meaning of "religion"). Actually, read Dr. David Aikman's Atheism in the Marxist Tradition, and it becomes clear than atheism was a key factor in creating Marxist tyranny -- as most of us who study Marxist history know full well. But somehow Navabi has twisted things around so that whatever harmful impact atheism might have, it can never be blamed -- and the moral harmlessness of atheism is thus unfalsifiable. This is not a very risky way of arguing, especially since no one has even been cited as making the argument he claims to be debunking.

"The human brain is hard-wired to spot patterns." Yes, and to avoid them when convenient. Arguments from the fallibility of the human mind cut both ways.

Navabi also cites my old debating partner, Phil Zuckerman, on the delights of godless Scandinavia. But the Cambridge History of Scandinavia, other history texts, and even the Scandinavia skeptics Zuckerman interviews, all agree that Christianity played a huge role in creating the goods that Navabi appreciates. (These people were once Vikings, after all.)

In general, as someone who has been reading atheist and theistic apologetics for decades, I find virtually none of Navabi's arguments either original or persuasive. This is all Little League stuff.

Perhaps if you are a very trusting sort, and have only had exposure to the simplest and silliest arguments for theism, you will find this book valuable. It is, at least, an easy read, reasonably concise and avoids being shrill. Navabi's story at the end is also interesting.

This is a great little book. It is very concise, but covers its subject matter very effectively. I love writing that gets right to the heart of what it is trying to convey. Most books have way too much filler, I guess the price increases in relation to the number of pages.

I really enjoyed reading this book. Several books I have read previously by other authors have been heavy going, but Armin makes this whole subject area very accessible. I certainly recommend this book, the arguments are presented simply and clearly. Difficult to put this book down once I started reading as just wanted to read the next chapter, then the next chapter.

This is a fabulous book, not only for non-believers, but for believers as well. Very concise and non-judgmental. It gives very well articulated arguments. I highly recommend it. It's a fantastic read for people of any age who have question about faith.

I felt the book was very thought out and well researched. The comparisons of religious texts to scientific understandings and just plain common sense gives the reader an actual backing for an understanding to the atheist belief system. As a newly found Atheist I'm glad to have read this book.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book, a clear, logical insight to rational reasoning about the non-existence of a god without any emotional ranting. A must read for anyone who wishes to review the common arguments.

I enjoy reading theological books and similar types of non-fiction stemming from all religious perspectives. I found, however, that many of the author's hypotheses seemed unsupported and very strongly biased based on his personal life experiences. I'd recommend "The Reason for God" or "The God Question" to anyone wanting to hear a more logical and unbiased theological ideas.

I found this to be very well written. It is concise and readily understood. I am an ex baptist minister an now an atheist. I have dealt with these arguments ad infinitum but sadly reason is a tool which requires intellectual understand and is most often ineffectual against arguments based on emotion, which of course ALL religion is. Thanks for and great read.

It's a good book for beginners on the topic of atheism but it lacks more scientific comments that refute/debunk religious claims. Recommend it for those who want to read a read-in-one-sitting book about atheism.

I really, really wanted to like this book. The writing is on a high school level and while understanding the fact that Mr Navari is not a native english speaker, the endless number of grammatical faux pas are just painful. Was there no editor? It's just awful......."Would you believe in the claim that flying pineapples exist with no proof until proven wrong without any evidence?" Seriously? A big thumbs down for this waste of time.

I'm an atheist who in the past two years has been reading a lot of religious texts to try and better understand those around me and to better communicate my point of view. This book is easy, basic, and concise. I have already gone through it twice. This is book hits the bullseye for me as an atheist.

While reading this with my fedora and cuddled in with all my My Little Pony figurines, the book finally completed the circle which entered me into full euphoria.

When in this state, I can rid of the religious illogical plebs that would otherwise discriminate me. Simply a scratch of my crafted neckbeard and my large brain converts any fundie into a militant atheist like myself.

I recommend this to any accomplished neckbeard who is taking part in ridding the world of religion. Grab your fedoras, put on your trenchcoats and together we can escape the friendzone and convert all to atheism.

Cons:
The only problem with buying this book was my mom. She gave me the horrendous task of cleaning up the basement, where I humbly sleep in. I simply adore the smell of body odor and the orange haze from Doritos. But, in order to achieve full euphoria, it was something that needed to happen.

I was expecting to find a robots arguments in refuting the evidence of god, this book only touches the surface of some argument with few words that is not real sufficient for someone who is serious in researching through this subject. Don't judge a book from its cover.

Meh...I was expecting more fact based arguments. This book really feels like the author had an agenda (not based on facts, but personal beliefs) and then tried to string a few shreds of evidence together to create a significant thesis. Not impressed. For such a hot topic, this could have been executed better.

The author builds up faulty straw men & then breaks them down. Most of the premises he disputes are not those to which most Christians adhere.

For example, most modern Christians understand and accept scientific evidence & explanations. Very, very few choose the Bible over geology, astrology & so forth. Also, many, like myself, do not believe God sends non-Christians to Hell. I personally don't believe anyone is condemned to eternal damnation for th remainer of time for actions committed during a ~ 90 year span.

In other words, it's not valid to dispute unpopular or sparsely held beliefs in the Faith as a means to disprove the existence of God.

I don't look to the intelligent/complex design in nature to prove God's existence as did Thomas Equinous.

Here's how I quell my doubts when I experience them. There are very few places in this country where you can drive further than 5 miles from one church to the other. What are the odds a belief system would become so endemic to our society if it were 100% false? If believers weren't being served by church membership, the church would die out. I believe it is so unlikely that a faith worshiping a Middle Eastern Jew who claimed to be God's Son would be so pervasive over 2,000 years later that God has had a hand in spreading that faith. That, to me, beyond my personal relationship with Him, is evidence for God's existence