The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism

I have read almost every major book on this subject, Dawkins, Harris, Barker etc. and thought I would be reading redundant information. I was pleasantly suprised at the content as well as the way David Mills writes. I wish this book could replace every bible ever printed and it should be mandatory reading for anyone befor taking a leap of FAITH. Execellent book Mr. Mills. I wish you where my neighbor so we could chat and you could help me write a best seller. Good on you my friend,PEACE.

The sheer amount of ignorance creationists have at their disposal may seem daunting to anyone who believes in science. A creationist thinks by "faith," which allows him/her to believe whatever s/he wants without evidence of any sort. A rational person's response is limited to fact and reality, the creationist's attack is not. This book can help. Moreover, although creationism purports to be an alternative to evolution, creationism attacks science in many areas--from biology to cosmology. A biologist may not know how to counter creationist misconceptions about astronomy. This book is very informative in not only answering creationist inventions about evolution, but also about other fields of science which creationism intends to destroy. This book is good reading for anyone who has joined the fight against the coming of a new Dark Ages.

This book is fairly good overall, although I would say that it is fairly basic in that it's main goal is to refute Intelligent Design ideas. It is not a highly philosophical book on atheism, but geared towards refuting common lay misconceptions of atheism.

I do rank this book among other top atheist books out there such as God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and Godless by Dan Barker. I am glad I read it and do recommend it. The book flows nicely and is an intelligible enjoyable read.

A great, quick read.

The author starts with his "Manifesto", which is a very accessible summary of atheism in the shape of an interview, and then goes on deeper on individual ideas in further chapters.

Atheist Universe presents facts such as evolution and the big bang in layman's terms, fully accessible to people outside the science realm. The author asserts the logic behind Atheism gently and without an air of intellectual superiority but, at the same time, quite firmly and leaving no space for doubts.

I have only one gripe with this book. Mills says the only difference between an atheist and an agnostic is guts. That cliched opinion never fails to piss me off. I am an atheist now, but I was agnostic for many years before I was ready to say no to all gods. I had to read and think a lot before making a final decision. There is nothing cowardly or wishy-washy about saying, "I don't know." According to ignorant fanatics, agnostics go to hell, too, so please people, show some respect for deep thinkers who are willing to admit that they just don't know.

If you're a non-believe, freethinker, atheist, agnostic, or whatever you'd like to call yourself, you will LOVE this book. At the beginning of this book, David tells readers that "After reading this book... you will NOT believe that this book had little to say." And he follows through, challenging creationist beliefs and arguments for the existence of god with clear, concise logic. For every non-believer, this book is a must-read.

And for every believer, READ THIS BOOK. This book will challenge your beliefs. If your beliefs survive this book, then they are stronger for it.

This AMAZING book is clear and convicing. Everyone should read this book. You won't be dissapointed.

The biggest problem with modern science is that it has reached a level of complexity that requires better than average intelligence to understand it. However, fifty percent of us are below average in intelligence by definition of a normal curve. Thus, often we have to take what scientists tell us "on faith." How, we may ask, is that different from taking god "on faith?"

This book does a good job of explaining science in plain English for those of us who are "scientifically challenged." I liked the non mathematical plain English explanation of the "Big Bang." Even so, I am "taking on faith" that scientists have discovered that, even in a perfect vacuum, random electromagnentic oscillations are present. I find that fascinating. From this derives all.

This book is great! It's concepts are simple to understand, compelling and devastating to the idea of God. It is incredibly interesting and easy to read. I would be very skeptical of anyone who could read this book and still say without a doubt that "God exists and the Bible is perfect." I am not surprised this is the #1 selling book on atheism. WOW!

Atheist Universe is the best book I have read in the last 3 years.David Mills defends atheism better then anyone i have read and in the process destroys all Fundamentalist propaganda and myths which in these times of growing Facism under conservative -fundamentalist rule is important.David Mills points out at one time he was a brainwashed Fundamentalist handing out their pamphlets but he actually started thinking and investigating the church.In his interview chapter he points out that atheist are as moral or more so then most Christians,He points out the historical evidence for Christianity none exists outside of religious books.His other chapters use science to disprove the Fundamentalist myths of creation.There is a whole chapter on physics to disprove creation,the last bastillian the Fundamentalist thought they had because other scientist have destroyed their other arguments in other fields of science.he goes on to disprove miracles,intenet porns harm and in the process shows what hypocrits The Fundamentalist really are.He has a short chapter on the Big and false Fundamentalist claim that America was created as a Christian nation.This chapter could have been expanded and is much to short.The icing on the cake is that the book is written in clear,non dry language spiced with antedotes and quotes from very famous people who supported atheism.for people with a brain cell left,buy this book.

I own a lot of books about atheism and this one ranks right up there with the likes of Carl Sagan and Robert Ingersoll. Very clearly written, very easy to understand, and very compelling, I feel that this book is a "must read" for anyone who questions the existance of a god.

I plan to buy three copies of this book to give to my children!

In a few short words, this book is a great (and interesting) alternative to other reads on the subject such as those written by Richard Dawkins. The writing is not the least bit defensive, but simply lays out great points. It is the best publication I've read on the subject to date.

I've been an Atheist for more than 20 years and have not found a more straight forward book than Atheist Universe for explaining the Atheist argument! It's written in simple language and it's a real page turner. Highly recommended. You can read it in any order you like as each chapter is self contained, but I recommend reading from start to finish. I'm buying some more for my friends!

This is truly one of those page-turners. Simple yet deep in places. I highly recommend this book if you're just starting out in atheist research. There are lots of little factual tidbits that I found interesting. My only complaint is that I would have liked Mr. Mills to have actually gone into more detail since his opinions were so well thoughtout. Read this book in conjunction with KENNETH C. DAVIS' DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE BIBLE.

I found it to be good basic info, a little slow at times. The last part on intelligent design was rather tedious. If you are just out of the church and need support to justify your new views this will be of great help to you.

I have read this book twice. The arguments are powerful. It is one of those book you wish you could talk all of your friends into reading. Mills makes good arguments and should continue to write more books along this line in the future.

Mr. Mills pulls no punches in exploding the myth of a deity, and of a Universe created "by design." Backed with science, logic, and simple common sense on his side, he tackles each ridiculous assertion layed out by the hardcore fundamentalists. And he does it in an easy to follow, entertaining style. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and I hope others will see it for what it really is - a lesson in clear, OBJECTIVE thinking. That being said, I'm sure some will disagree and will try to poke holes in Mr. Mills' arguments. Sorry... if the science/creationism debate were a football game, the final score would be Science 42, Creationism 0! It really is that lopsided. And this book will be your play-by-play guide.

This is, without a doubt, one of the best books I've ever read. Wonderfully and tastefully written, I learned more about the Bible from this book than anything Christianity has ever attempted to accomplish by beating their beliefs over my head. Kudos, David Mills, you've spoken well.

Ever get into a debate with a creationist? This book explains the flaws in their arguments and logic in a clear, concise, and simple way. This book easily moves the debate from 'How can you NOT believe in God?" to "How CAN you believe in God?" without the belittling or browbeating typically found in this debate.

If you are reading this review, then you obviously have some interest in the subject of atheism. This is hands down the most enjoyable read on the subject that I have found and I am planning to read it again! Get it!

I've been a person of faith all my life, but this book is so well written and convincing that it's difficult to argue with it. A reasonable person can understand this theme, but understanding the Bible is impossible in comparison. Giving way to reason when one's past has been centered on faith is not easy. Old habits die hard, but there's no denying that in a few generations the Bible may be placed in the company of other myths and fabrications that have appeared over the centuries.

Among the atheist writers Mills is among the most articulate. The quotes add zest and authenticity to the subject. I thoroughly enjoyed the book the first time through, and I still go back to re-read certain chapters.

Please don't let the title intimidate you. Mills does a marvelous job of gently discussing pantheism/atheism as a fulfilling, intelligent, and convincing alternative to the ego delusion, sociopathy and historical hostility of sectarian religion/theism. As convincing and informative as the writings of Richard Dawkins, this treatise is less science-intensive and thus perhaps more easily comprehensible to lay individuals. Like Dawkins, however, the text is right on target and frequently downright hilarious, not at all unlike the writings of latter day Mark Twain. As a secular naturalist/scientist/physician for over twenty years now, and one who was for nearly twenty years a devout sectarian Christian, I can say with all conviction that this book is a must read....especially for intelligent theists who are at least open-minded enough to rationally consider both sides of a simple discussion. Many of my professional colleagues, both theists and atheists, are reading and thoroughly enjoying this text. My highest recommendation.

Great book, I bought it, I read it, I loved it, I lent it to an agnostic friend who no doubt will join me as an open Atheist when he is done. When I get it back I will read it again then start lending it to all my Atheist friends and any of my lost friends who want to see life more clearly.

Carl Sagan Quote: For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl's philosophy captures the spirit of the text. Atheist Universe is a well done and up to date exercise in critical thinking.

... but then, Mills is preaching to the choir. So to speak. Still, the book is chock full of interesting information, including some eye-openers: Who knew, for example, that Congress (our founding congress) voted unanimously to affirm that the "United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"? (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797). Too bad this book won't be read by those who *ought* to read it.

I really enjoyed this book. It is well written and concise. Why I would be willing to wager that even the most ardent believer could understand this book. I also enjoyed the highlighted quotes from famous nonbelievers.

cheers,

rmw

Certainly thought provoking, but this is 'heavy' reading - rather labored. But - then - so is Dawkins' "God Delusion". Between them they lay out most of the arguments, and should be read carefully, whether you choose to agree or not.

This is by far the best book I've ever read about Atheism. David Mills writes in a very easy to understand format. He gives very simple examples to help in the understanding of the scientific terms and items in his book. Any believer, after reading this would probably become an Atheist. This is a must read for anyone interested in Atheism or religion. Fred Spoerl

This book starts off well enough. Dorian Sagan's introduction is excellent. It doesn't take too much reading of the rest of the book, however, before a bad feeling starts to set in. I'm a committed atheist, and the author is right 99% of the time, but he is preaching, if I'm allowed to use that word, to the converted. His tone and attitude are so annoying that this book is useless for trying to convert an open-minded Christian reader. It reaches an absolute nadir when he devotes a chapter to defending pornography on the Internet! What does this have to do with the subject? It's like he just has to put every opinion he has ever held into the book. Give us a break!

What we need is a reasoned argument that starts from a few basic premises and builds to a conclusion. If you want to start to sow the seeds of doubt in a Christian, have them read Thomas Paine's the Age of Reason or some of Bart Ehrman's books.

Books like this will give atheism a bad name! :-)

First, let it be understood: I AGREE with Mills. I am an atheist, or at least an agnostic, depending on the strictness of your definitions and my mood at the time, and maybe what day of the week it is. And it is true; this book does what the cover blurb says it does: it "makes the case against Intelligent Design", and is "The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism". What it fails to do, however, is to make the case for atheism. Mills spends his entire book shooting down fundamentalist Christianity, which is, frankly, a pretty easy target to shoot down. But at no time does he ever make more than the barest of hand-waving gestures at disputing religion in general. What this book does, it does pretty admirably, but its scope is far more limited than the title would suggest. Because while I am not a follower of any religious belief, am still aware that there are plenty of them that are less obviously flawed and silly than Christian Fundamentalism. What Mills does is essentially the equivalent of a mathematician going to great lengths to prove that x>2, and claiming that by doing so, he has proven that x> 8.

Other reviewers have already attested to the outstanding job that Mills does at supporting atheism from many angles. I just want to offer my caveat that the book contains quite a bit of sarcasm. For those of us that have already gone through the process of escaping from the clutches of religion, yes, much of the content of religious belief now appears rather ridiculous. But such is not the case for believers and many agnostics, as I remember myself from when I was a devout Christian growing up. However, I really can't fault the author for his bluntness... it's practically necessary to tell the full story, and it's a useful mechanism for avoiding a sleep-inducing tone of academia. I'd just like to encourage timid readers to take the sarcasm with a grain of salt and see it as playful rather than harsh.

The author makes some good points. A lot of what he says is consistent with other Atheist authors. I ended up skipping a few chapters because his science of the universe stuff was a little boring for me. The chapters I did read where good and held my interest.

The author makes some good points. A lot of what he says is consistent with other Atheist authors. I ended up skipping a few chapters because his science of the universe stuff was a little boring for me. The chapters I did read where good and held my interest.

The book is quite informative and educational. It explains to me why (from the get-go) I could never fully embrace "religious truth." Yet, I have always embraced a "God source" for everything, just not the God of religion, any religion. I don't think any thinking person who calls himself an Atheist is anything other than a non believer in ignorance. Only a fool would think there isn't Something back of everything, call it what you like.

I enjoyed this book for what it was, it was engaging and fluent to read. However, it has its weak and stronger points.

His dismissal or manner of dealing with various ID claims seems to be less than geniune. For instance, in trying argue for the age of the earth based on the millions of light years it would take for various stars' light to be visible to earth, Mills' writes: "...R.L. Wysong, asserts without explanation that "the time required (for light) to reach us from the most distant stars is only 15 years."

Of course, when you look this up, first off this is not "Wysong's" assertion (although he would agree), but Mills' quotes Wysong's quote from an article entitled "Binary Stars and the Velocity of Light," found in the "Journal of the Optical Society of America." Wysong is not giving a self substantiated claim, but is giving the findings of "Scientists at M.I.T. and the University of Conneticut" which "have shown through Riemannian curved space astroyphysics that "the time requred to reach us from most distant stars is only 15 years."" Point being is that Mills portrays Wysong as just making some off the wall rediculous claim, when what Wysong is doing is making the claim based on the substantiation of Riemannian curved space astrophysics. Rather than deal with the astropysics proposed as being valid or invalid, Mills just states that Wysong makes this non-Einstenian claim for no apparent reason (and he assumes 99% of his readers won't look it up, which is a proper assumption).

Some previous reviews mention his chapter on Hell. This chapter, for any "thinking" evangelical (not necessarily a fundi), is obviously laughable. Whether one agrees with the theological approach to understanding hell or God, you have to at least understand it to refute it. Mill's refutes a non-evangelical/theological understanding of hell, which is fine, but it doesn't help his case. He speaks about the attributes of God such as love, in relation to hell, while completely ignoring God's justice...the single most important attribute of God in relation to the study of Hell...whether you agree with hell or not, you have to properly understand it theologically.

Further, he constantly groups fundi types without addressing the clear difference between believing in fundamentals and being a fundamentalist. When making an argument, he proceeds to attack the "weakest link," if you will, of the disjointed group of theists he puts together. For instance, he makes a claim at how obsurd T.v. evangelists are, Binny Hinn types, and proceeds to disclaim the theistic world view based on their bizarre behaviour etc... To assoiciate this type of "theist" as representative of theism is a weak approach IMO, as any intellectual theist or evangelical would find them reprehensable even more so than David Mills.

Further, when discussing Pascal's wager, I found his work around lacking. He presents the logic of Pascal, that it is irrational or illogical to not take a wager that requires zero risk for an infinite reward. If believing in God gained infinite reward in the after life, for the sake of argument, and you were wrong you lost nothing. IOW, the atheistic position is irrational, because it would be irrational not to take this wager for the simple reason that you have nothing to lose but everything to gain.

Mills counters this by stating that the logic fails because it still doesn't solve the problem of which "God" to believe in...the Muslim God, Christian God, etc...

His point is valid in concerns of answering the question of "which" religion, but Pascal's wager doesn't seek to answer this question, rather it answers the question of the rationility of being first a "theist." But, it only begs the question. Lets say there are 500 religions to choose from, this does not discount Pascal's logic...for, it is still more logical to wager nothing on a 500/1 shot for an infinite return.

Secondly, Mills' counters Pascal's logic by saying that if this life is all that we have, and we wager it to gain nothing in the after life, then indeed we have lost everything. Of course, this is based on the false premis or assumption that some how an atheist, freed from the bondage of theism, will somehow have a more enjoyable life than a devout theist. A person's happiness or enjoyment of life is often based on the individual, but quite honestly Atheism which inevitably leads to mild or full blown Nihilism has historically proven to detract from happiness, much more so than any Christian having hope of eternal life. The arguement just has no basis. If you ask the majority of Christians if they are happier as Christians when they weren't, the same majority would most likely say they were...and even if you could grant that the majority of Atheists would say they were happy...what have you proven? Absolutely nothing.

Finally, in reference to the Kaalam argument and W.L. Craig's marble illustration, Mill's attempts to show how illogical the approach is. Craig would argue that if you claim that matter or energy always existed, infinitely prior to the big bang (as Mills' claims), then you have a problem. An infinite period of time, before the big bang, would never allow you to reach the point of the big bang other wise the time prior would not be infinite.

To counter this Mills gives an illustration that to walk one block, according to the infinity argument, you could never do it because before you walk half the block you would have to walk one quarter, and before one quarter, you would have to walk 1/8th of the block...so on into infinite parts of the block's distance.

This is so obviously flawed I am suprised he entered it. Again, I am not saying its flawed because of what he is trying to prove, but to any thinking evangelical its logic is clearly misused.

For starters, if you reference WLC's work that Mills' uses (Reasonable Faith), WLC clearly makes a distinction between his refution of "actual infinities" vs. "potential infinities." Further, I was quite shocked at Mills' counter argument about the distance of one block...it appears that Mills himself got the idea from WLC. WLC says that a distance could be understood as having a potential infinity of parts (which is not absurd), but this is not the concept of the existence of an "actual infinity" he is refuting (which the existence of matter in an infinite regress of time or events supposes). I found Mills' highly ingenuine as WLC explicitly mentions the concept of dividing out a finite distance infinitely as not absurd, but Mills uses this claim to disprove the "absurdity" of an actual ifinite (but WLC doesn't claim it is absurd).

To make the analogy compare to what Craig is talking about, you would have to say that one could not walk the block if it was infinitely long...the fact that it has infinite parts is completely irrelevant. IOW, he switches the category being tested.

It is true that you cannot "count" the parts of distances as divided out, or ever stop dividing, but it is true that you can walk it. This, of course, is mixing analogies with what Craig is saying in relation to time. Craig talks about time, which can be finite (1 year), as understood as infinite; Mill's, in his counter illustration, talks about the infinite found within a finite (the distance of 1 block)...which completely flip flops the logic of the proposition. To make this analogy fit what Craig is talking about...you would have to say, at the other side of the block is your car, to get to your car you have to walk across the block which is 1 ft.* infinity,...when would you get to your car? Never.

Thus, Craig's logic that matter couldn't have existed infinitely before the big bang is anything but debunked by this category switch. Mill's claims this logic doesn't work in the empirical world...which is only true when you mix the categories being tested...i.e., when discussing the impossibility of reaching the end of infinity in time, Mill's relates that empircally as not being able to walk across a finite distance that has infinitely divided out parts...not the same. As the ability to walk a distance relates to the amount of distance (whether infinite or finite) not to whether a finite distance can be divided out infinitely. For Mills' analogy to follow Craig's, Craig would have had to say the big bang could have never been reached because you can divide out 1 minute (a finite time) infinitely. But of course, the issue isn't about division of a finite time but of the claim of infinite time.

Mill's better argument, or at least not so commonly seen to be flawed categorically, is that of an infinitely old God vs. an infinitely old universe -- if one is true why can't the other. I won't go into this much, but this doesn't explain the problem (and gives the false assumption that theists believe God is infinitely old rather than timeless). The logic presented above about infinite time still would hold true, in order for the big bang to be reached Mill's would have to claim that matter/energy existed outside of time (as Christian's claim God did/does), which of course brings an entirely new issue of impossibilities for Mills' position on the eternal existentence of matter/energy. Thus, from what I seen, to refult the problem of an infinite regress concerning the eternal existence of matter, all Mills' can do is not answer and jump to another supposed delimma of God's eternal existence.

Ok, grant that God can't exist either, can you solve the problem of an infinite regrees in terms of an infinite series of events resulting from the existence of matter/energy? No, at least Mills doesn't.

In conclusion, it got me to think some, but I found the majority of the arguments to be quickly refuted logically or based on straw men. All in all an enjoyable read, atheist or theist.

The author states: "Fifteen hundred years of progress were therefore stifled by the Christian Church" (p.49). Really? The entire earth and all it's inhabitants, all of the other faiths and cultures of all the earth's people were stifled irrevicobly and irrefutably by the Christian Church? Holy Moly. If they had if fact proven to be so utterly omnipotent, where do aethiests like you (and myself) come from, and how did we live long enough to know it?
You go on to state: "Were it not for religious persecution and oppression of science, mankind might have landed on the moon in the year A.D.650. Cancer may have been eradicated forever by the year A.D.800. And heart disease may, today, be unknown" (p.49). Really? As a man wedded to a deep belief in the rightness of science, where do you have even a scintilla of evidentiary proof to support these claims? You say it defies logic that atheism by definition can by a religion, but such remarkable bombast makes you sound for all the world like any other fundamentalist.
And what on earth is the rant against Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and your defense of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have to do in any way whatever with the professed premise of your book?
So not only are we to throw all Christians on the bonfire for centuries of crimes against humanity, let's throw in all modern day political and social conservatives as well, based on what you suspect of their personal belief systems? Jeez dude, talk about running off the rails right into your own Salem Witch Trials as both judge and jury.
And oh by the way, I noticed you left Muslim fundamentalists completely off the table: Minor oversight I guess.

This book is an unapologetic critique of christian fundamentalism. It is a point by point analysis of many of the arguments for and against the existence of a God. The focus of this book is mostly on Christianity rather than other modern religions. It is well organized and well thought out. The arguments presented throughout the book by the author are compelling and convincing. Some parts of the book are simple with discussions of many of the traditional arguments against the existence of a God but other parts are very technical (particularly the chapter on Intelligent Design) and will likely disinterest the casual reader. But the good thing about the book is that all of chapters of the book stand alone and can be read and digested independently of the others. This book clearly stands out as one of the best in the genre and I highly recommend it to anyone who may be interested in this subject. Weather one will like this book or not will clearly depend on ideology. Fundamentalists will call it blasphemous and will likely be offended. However, if the reader is open-minded and impartial, I think that this book will give one a lot to think about and generate a healthy debate.

This is the most concise elaboration into atheist thought for both the irreligious novice and the seasoned Christian apologist. I was finally able to work in a book after a lull in my busy schedule so I was particularly meticulous about what I wanted to read – something light, yet informative. The atheist universe is a serendipitous find for both its subject matter and presentation that the reader will refer to for years come.

The Atheist universe is thesis about the author’s atheism and attack on the illogical aspects of religion – concentrated mostly on Christianity – to highlight its irreconcilable irrationality. Starting with a ask me anything session “interview with an atheist”, the author answers the most pertinent questions about what atheist believe and why they believe it. Broken down in distinct chapters and presenting the logic that conflict with doctrines, the author lays down powerful arguments that cast serious doubt, it not outright destroys the apologetics related to Biblical inerrancy, creation science, the problem of evil, the Christian obsession with pornography, Intelligent design, and the supposed Christian founding of America. Dotted through out the book are quotes from some the relevant figures like Albert Einstein, Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, etc espousing their unbelief and setting the record straight from Christian how have twisted the words of others.

It is an incredibly informative book. For the novice, the book puts into words the multifaceted rationale for disbelief in the Bible and supernatural with a simplicity not seen since the PBS Nova “Judgment Day - Intelligent Design on Trial”. The author put out a particularly uncompromising view about the irreconcilability of religious (without being outright hostile) ideas, more so in chapters that refute intelligent design/irreducible complexity, Creation Science, and growing legend about the Christian influence of America’s founding. It does have some perceptible lulls, though no entirely the fault of the author. In chapters “God of the Gaps” and “The myth of hell”, the author figuratively fights fire with fire by the applying similar nuanced philosophy that Christian apologists use and admittedly, I had stop to reread certain section just to make sure I understood it. On the other hand, the book is that good that I thought it was worthwhile to reread certain sections – heck, I made time to read the book at any moment I could. In a somewhat odd tangent, the author includes a chapter regarding pornography in America – while the matter almost never comes up in debates, the author saw it fit to include to highlight both hypocrisy that Christians are as eager consumers as the non-believers are and as their straw man propped up during the Reagan administration and an knocked down after hours of research – that involved watching thousands of hours of pornographic videos and reading countless magazines – to create an argument of the “dangers” of pornography

Nevertheless it is a wonderful book, while I have never had to defend my beliefs to the same level at the author has, being able to correct the local Jehovah witnesses and similar types with the logic of what you know of you both an accept is true is a confidence builder. The reader will have a better sense of preparedness in explaining what they believe and dispelling stereotypes that have dogged unbelievers since the 1950s. While there are more elaborate books on the matter, the atheist universe is an excellent introduction and elaboration for the freethinking reader.

This is simply an excellent book for those who share its views; or for anyone who has doubts and wonders what the "infidels" are thinking. I don't think I noticed any negative reviews (I bought this book based on the reviews), but I really wouldn't expect any. Most people wouldn't be caught dead reading a book with the word "atheist" in the title. If any devout believer actually condescended to try it (like they were stranded on a desert island and there was nothing else to do), they would likely be quickly offended by the contents on any random page. I'll bet not 1 out of 100 devout believers would finish this book.

Among the author's offerings are: "Americans believe 58% to 40% that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. By contrast, only 13% of Europeans agree with the US view...I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose (from Clarence Darrow)...I've always considered atheism to be a very positive philosophy in that, by eliminating a very burdensome obligation to appease a non-existent God, an individual thereby gains maximum freedom to choose his own goals and ideals for a satisfying life...(about public prayer in school) Let's remember that Jesus warned the Pharisees NOT to pray publicly because such prayers were usually pretentious, insincere efforts to showboat...My own observation is that those most terrified of death are not atheists, but believers, uncertain whether they are going to Heaven or Hell...Historically, whenever primitive man lacked scientific understanding of an observed event, he created a 'God of the Gaps' to fill the intellectual vacuum...The wider the gaps in scientific understanding, the greater the historic need for a miracle working 'GOTG'...As a general historic observation, each step forward taken by science has further distanced the hand of God from perceived intervention into natural events. As humanity's gaps of knowledge were slowly replaced by scientific understanding, a GOTG found fewer and fewer caverns of intellectual darkness in which to live...Believers create the illusion of answered prayer by systematically employing the fallacy known as 'Selective Observation,' a perceptual error also referred to as 'Counting the hits and ignoring the misses.'...The more tragic the event - and the higher the body count - the more inclined are the media to feature 'Miracle Survivors' on the six o'clock news...When, however, everyone dies in a catastrophe, such as a Jumbo Jet crash, the newspaper headline never reads 'Jehovah Out To Lunch During Doomed Flight.'...In plain English, we don't know why specific individuals live or die in disasters. We know that Christians are no more likely to survive than non-Christians; and the virtuous are just as likely to perish as thy corrupt...The Christian Church wholeheartedly believes this 'Divine' biblical prophecy, which announces that the vast majority of humanity will follow the wrong road in life and will, as a result end up in Hell instead of Heaven. God - in his infinite wisdom - would have known in advance that most of humanity would have fallen victim to the gruesome torture chamber...a truely benevolent and omnipotent God would let bygones be bygones and forgive 'sinners' even though they adopted mistaken religious beliefs...But, Christians respond, 'without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sin. And God only asks that we accept the blood sacrifice that Jesus offered for us on the cross.' And who, may I ask, established this rule that 'without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sin'? The answer, again, is God....The fact that God supposedly demands blood before He offers forgiveness is indicative of the bestial mindset of the primitive cultures extant when the Bible was written...The myth of Hell represents all the meanness, all the revenge, all the selfishness, all the cruelty, all the hatred, all the infamy of which the heart of man is capable...God was indeed created in man's own image...The two documents upon which our country was founded - ie, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States contain not a single word about Christianity, Christian principles, the Bible, or Jesus Christ...The Christian clergy of the Revolutionary period tried again and again to have references to Christianity inserted directly into the US Constitution, but they were refused every time by the Founders. Two 'Christian principles' may have indeed influenced the Founding Fathers. One was the Puritan practice of executing witches, the other was King George III's absolute mandate that his subjects worship in a manner approved by the Church of England...Witch burning and mandatory church affiliation are only 2 of many issues which led the Founding Fathers to establish a 'Wall of Separation between Church and State,' allowing, at each citizen's discretion, freedom of religion or freedom FROM religion...The National Motto was not changed to 'In God We Trust' until 1956. Likewise, the phrase 'under God' was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954."

Please forgive all the quotes making this a long review, but there is so much here to agree with, it's hard to stop. This book gives you a 50 yard line ticket to a comprehensive discussion of belief vs non-belief, yet is fun to read. The chapter on Hell is great; the chapter on the origin of the universe and solar systems is among the best explanations I've ever read; the "Interview With an Atheist" chapter should become a classic; the quotes by famous men who are atheists are priceless; I LOVED the short chapter about the Founding Fathers, etc.

A very well deserved 5 stars for this book.

When I read this email I was sure that you had somehow made a mistake, because I did not (knowingly) purchase the book, "Atheist Universe" and was fairly certain that I had never even seen it. Then, this morning, I was going through a pile of stuff on my desk and there was the book in question, apparently never opened by me. Am I going nuts? Did some supernatural force put the book there? Does God exist and He wants me to read this book?

I have been researching the absurd idea that the Christian God's book, the Bible, could somehow be in conflict with the very nature that He created. I do believe in God, but see very clear problems with today's Christianity, fundamentalism, and young earth malarkey, and have a completed book on the subject. I say, "completed" with resevations. There isn't a day goes by that I don't come acoss something that should or could be added. There seems to be no end to how far off course a religion can go when left up to the tinkering of man. At the moment, I am searching for a Literary Agent with an interest in promoting a book about a subject that needs to be heard by the very people who don't want to hear it. If you have any ideas that might help, I'd be quite open to them.

Anyway, here I am with another book that was evidently given to me without any solicitation on my part whatsoever. I now have eight books that were just given to me out of the blue about various aspect of the subject I am researching. The other seven do come from known sources. Since you are asking for a review, I suspect that you might know, at least in part, just how this book got on my desk. Could you please help solve this mystery for me? I would be happy to read the book, do a review, and could have it back to you in a few weeks. Would there be any time constraints? Should I do this?

Curious Ray

Ray Moody

[email protected]

Creationist believe silly things based on nothing but intuition and a belief system based on their revealed religion. Even among themselves they will argue about the placement of a comma and will accept what a book written thousands of years ago says over what science, common sense, reason, empirical data and rational thought processes show to be true.

It's incredible that people still reject the fact of evolution (the fossil record exist regardless of what people falsely may believe) and the Theory of Evolution provides the narrative for the explanation of the appearance of design around us. I recently went to a fundamentalist church and the church took it as given the literal truth of Noah's flood and how it explained everything the congregation needed to know about evolution. Yes, there are churches where people actually do believe those kind of things, and books like this one are needed to correct those silly beliefs.

What the book does mostly is show how much funner it is to rely on complicated thought processes to understand than it is to just assume the truth has been revealed to man through magical means and that the same magic never allowed for errors in the translations through millenniums. Give me a world with doubt any day, over a world with certain knowledge based on 2000 year old books. Science only shows things to be less false, but always fascinates. Certainty leads to no growth because nothing else is needed for understanding.

The author goes beyond science and examines what it really means to believe in a holy book such as the bible. He's got a good chapter on "hell" and why it just makes no sense. I would recommend one of my favorite books that dealt with that similar theme and used that as a central character the memoir of Jerry Dewitt "Hope After Faith". It was his non acceptance of hell that led him out of his journey from a Pentecostal Preacher ultimately to an atheist. And does having some one else dying for your sins really make any sense?

I would recommend this as the best book I've read for a fundamentalist who is starting to doubt the revealed truths she's been hearing on Sundays and has started to realize that there is such a thing as science which can explain our place in the universe better than a book which documents a world wide flood and claims animals must come from their 'kind' thus completely rejecting the Theory of Evolution before it was proposed.

I preferred Richard Carrier's book "Sense and Goodness without God" slightly more than this book, but I would rank this book slightly higher for those who haven't read hundreds of science books because this book is definitely less rigorous and more accessible.

Author David Mills wrote in the Introduction to this 2006 book, "this book is intended for the 40 percent of Americans who, according to the New York Times poll, do recognize that there are good people (and bad people) in all religions---and with no religion. This book is written for open-minded readers who are not afraid to learn---in fact, who are eager and fascinated to learn---about the many conflicts between science and the Christian Bible... This book will put together all the pieces for you and clearly articulate why, in my opinion, ALL science and ALL logic indicate that we live in an Atheist Universe." (Pg. 16)

When asked by an interviewer the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, he replied, "The words atheist and agnostic have totally disparate origins. But the real answer to your question is GUTS. It is more socially acceptable to be an agnostic than an atheist... atheism... represents a more specific and firmly-held position than agnosticism, which ... can mean a hundred different things." (Pg. 40) He argues that people believe in God because "they were taught to believe as small children and because almost everybody they know believes in God also. We should recognize that all children are born as atheists. There is no child born with a religious belief." (Pg. 43-44)

About the age of the earth, he observes, "Creationists sometimes respond that the Genesis flood somehow 'reset Earth's radioactive time clock.' If so, then why do the oldest lunar and Martian rocks also test at 4.5 billion years (the same age as earth)? Did Noah's flood 'reset the radioactive time clocks' on the moon and Mars too?" (Pg. 152)

Responding to the argument that astronaut John Glenn was an intelligent man of science, he replied, "John Glenn is certainly no coward or halfwit. And clearly, there are MILLIONS of other highy intelligent, competent, talented, courageous and admirable people who, like Glenn, believe in God... And, for the most part, the evidence cited by these believers is real, rather than imagined. The Earth IS remarkably beautiful from space. Nature DOES show a degree of underlying order. But I also recall vividly that, at the very moment Glenn uttered his oft-repeated words about a Creator, the Shuttle was flying over Central America, where Hurricane Mitch had just destroyed the infrastructure of five entire nations. Thousands of people had just been killed and hundreds of thousands left homeless." (Pg. 181)

More focused on science than many other Atheist books, this book will be of considerable interest to atheists, skeptics, and other freethinkers---and perhaps also to those who just want to get a glimpse into the mind of an intelligent and popular atheist.

This is a well-written, concise, interesting overview of the argument against Christian fundamentalism ... particularly Creationism.

How did the universe come into being? We don't know. But new discoveries in quantum theory, as well as research done by Stephen Hawking and his colleagues, have demonstrated that matter can and does arise quite spontaneously from the vacuum fluctuation energy of "empty" space.

Intelligent Design? Mills states that "ID's greatest triumph ... has been in convincing the general public that there is a controversy raging among scientists over Intelligent Design. There is no scientific controversy whatever."

So how did life begin? Well, we know God isn't necessary. There is no need for spontaneous creation of complex cells; the first cells contained no nucleus at all, consisting mainly of an exterior membrane. Biological membranes form easily and spontaneously from a mixture of water and simple lipids. From there, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and Mills carefully refutes argument after argument posed by creationists.

Life after death? Forget having science on your side, here. For example, if the law of the conservation of mass/energy necessitates consciousness after death (because mass/energy can be neither destroyed nor created) then the same law requires consciousness before conception.

There just isn't any real debate among scientists in these matters. A study in 1998 revealed that, of the membership of the National Academy of Sciences, only 7 percent believed in a personal God, and even fewer in Creation Science or Intelligent Design. The point I took away from the book is this: Religious beliefs must remain beliefs; no more or less. The Bible's creationist claims are not and cannot be supported by science.

Having read quite a few books on this subject area, I found David Mills' 'Atheist Universe' as good as any others and better than most. In particular, I liked his straightforward style when discussing the key issues in the first 200 pages of the book. From my point of view, his explanations and reasoning seemed more comprehensible than many other writers in this context, as they are presented in a way that is logical and easy to digest, in a way that shows an author who cares about the reader understanding it.

I have to admit to not being as enamoured with his treatment of Intelligent Design in the last part of the book, however. While I am completely convinced of the fallacy of the ID arguments, and would not disagree with Mills' objections and corrections, I tired somewhat during the author's full-frontal assault on ID and its proponents, as I found it overly repetitive and harping, and wading through it sometimes felt a bit like withstanding pulpit-pounding of the type we expect of the Christan fundamentalists. Nevertheless, one is left with the impression that this is the product of Mills' genuine passion for the subject-matter and outrage at the misleading and unscientific statements and propositions put forward by the ID lobby.

But, that said, overall I would recommend this as a readily understandable exposition of the issues and arguments regarding God's existence, creation theory and the status of the Bible, and one worthwhile acquiring (and reading).

The author does a pretty thorough job of pointing out the fallacies and hypocrisy of religion; how it doesn't square with science, and how, when biblical non-literalists invent ways of forcing it to square, it seems only more ridiculous. That aside, I had a slight problem with the author's occasional exaggeration, eg, "Were it not for religious persecution and oppression of science, mankind might have landed on the moon in the year A.D. 650. Cancer may have been eradicated forever by the year 800. And heart disease may, today, be unknown".

Come on! The target (Christianity, in this case) already looks weak; was it really necessary to throw in this nonsense?

I have bought three copies of this thing, due to having loaned it out and either it comming back half mangled or just not comming back at all.

Having read (now) at least a dozen books on the same subject many of them very good, this one is what I keep comming back to. If you are new to this subject this IS the book you want, not The God Delusion (which is exellent but not as good as this one for people new to the subject). I won't recount all the details of this book here, but this is the best survey of the issues and a good read besides. That is the best combination for the new reader. If there was a six stars option I would make use of it.

This is exactly the book you need if, like me, you are interested in religion (but not a believer) and want to have a summary of the essential facts and arguments with you. Like many, my interest in atheism only started when local school boards started trying to spread the myth that there is any scientific controversy whatsoever about Evolution, and proposing that our schools should "encourage debate on evolution" as a non-too-subtle way of introducing "Intelligent Design" (i.e. creationism in a cheap lab coat) into the school curriculum. If that whole thing makes you mad, read the Dover, PA ruling on the topic by Judge John Jones (search "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District" on Wikipedia) then buy Mills's book. This book contains all of the arguments for a so-called Intelligent Designer, and rebuts them all. But it goes further and provides clear, simple English explanations of contemporary and long-established scientific theory that comfortably and clearly explains why things are as they are. It also acts as good intro to topics you might otherwise never tackle, such as conservation of mass-energy (E=mc2 etc) and various other scientific principles that explain clearly why religious postulations regarding origin of life, the universe and everything are unnecessary. This is a great book if you have religious friends who are pushy (or a school board that is so) and you need clear and simple explanations to counter the Bible. It's interesting, well-written, humorous without being patronising of the religious, and most of all accessible to the average person. So in a country (the US) where only 32% of the population appears to "believe" in Evolution (scary!) this is an important book to have to hand.

I read this book immediately following "50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God" by Guy P. Harrison. In that review, I started by positing I found it to be a great overarching introduction to the arena of atheism/counter apologetics. Perhaps simply because this book followed, I would highly suggest Atheist Universe as a more focused approach to countering fundamentalist views and misconceptions about science. Where Mr. Harrison's book had a wide range of subject matter to refute, this book squarely focuses on science, and the countering of so-called creationism/creation science/intelligent design (or whatever it may be called in its next incarnation).

While not quite as abrasive as some may find any of the "Four Horsemen's" books, Mr. Mills certainly didn't pull any punches. The first quote I underlined was on page 16 in the introduction; "Scientists, not wanting to rock the boat and upset their audience, rarely make a deliberate, concentrated effort to point out disparities between their laboratory findings and the "truth" as revealed in the Word of God. The result is that religious belief is inculcated into children long before they are capable of independently scrutinizing their parents' mystical assertions."

As in 50 Reasons, Atheist Universe takes a point-by-point approach; reconciliation of tales in the Bible with our understanding of the universe's beginning, the "miracle" of life on Earth (the chapter I found most intriguing), the misconception of America being founded on Christian "principles", and even tackles the supposed "dangers" of internet porn.

I would highly recommend Atheist Universe as a fine introduction into some of the more science-focused lines of reasoning against Christian fundamentalism. This book sits proudly on my shelf, and I find myself referencing it on a regular basis.

The topic of atheism is rather complicated, and it's refreshing to see a book like this not written in an overly dense or jargon filled manner. Mills comes across as an 'average American' (whatever that means) in his writting of the book, and avoids sounding pretentious in his manner of presentation. His arguments, and writting style are very accessible, and he rarely falls into overly technical terms.

The primary value of the book, comes from the new addition refuting the doctrine of Intelligent Design. It's well reasoned, and he brings up a number of points that I'd never have originally thought about. It should be noted that this book isn't a primer on atheist philosophy though, rather it shows that the Christian view of the Universe isn't necessary for the Universe to exist, and that purely natural means can suffice.

In Atheist Universe David Mills manages to eloquently simplify the positions behind Atheism in a surprisingly concise fashion. I did not expect much from this book when I ordered it, but once I started reading it, I could not put it down. With unexpected clairvoyance this book provided a solid foundation for the position of the religious skeptic.

A few months ago I considered myself to be agnostic, but after reading a few books on this subject (this one included) and watching numerous debates discussing the existence of a theistic, god I am now comfortable with my disbelief. An unexpected bonus of my accepting my disbelief, has come in the form of an almost child like state of intense curiosity in the natural world, and a self-confidence I didn't believe possible.

Because I found the nerve to question a belief system that was imposed upon me, before I could possibly understand it's implications; I feel that I am being true to myself in a way I didn't realize was possible. Atheist Universe is one of the books that explained to me, in very simple terms the illogical aspects of religion; and made me thankful to posses the skepticism that has resided in my heart since childhood.

For religious believers, here is David Mills' helpful guide to understanding non-believers. For non-believers, this volume serves as a quick reference for those common questions and statements so many of us hear from family, friends and co-workers who always seem to have Jesus For Sale. Not buying? This handy guide sums up many of the basic concepts Atheists, Agnostics & Freethinkers hold, explains why we don't simply accept someone else's blind faith, and shows that areligious does not mean amoral. This guide is also perfect for the individual who is tired of the seeker scene and leans towards rational thought.

Atheist philosophy in a nutshell--succinct and factual explanations of why Atheists don't believe in God(s) or the supernatural. Examines such concepts as evolution v. creationism, debunking of popular myths like "America is a Christian nation", Shroud of Turin, prophecy, etc! Also answers to common questions such as "don't you believe in ANYTHING?" (that one gets old!).

It is also nice to see Mills take apart the idea that religion and morality necessarily have anything to do with one another, and confront the erroneous idea some believers have that lack of belief in religion or God equates to lack of goodness in general. Atheists do good deeds because we care about others, not because we expect a reward down the road. You won't find an Atheist worrying about an afterlife, and for all the accusations against non-believers, you'll rarely find an Atheist in Prison.

This volume also acknowledges that many Atheists do not feel like they have to search or seek some "higher" or "greater" power. After all,what's wrong with nature, or trying to make the world around you a better place for the next generation? Non-believers in a human light, it is shown that Atheists have most of the same hopes and fears as believers--we want our kids to be safe and happy, we enjoy a nice sunrise, we hate paying 3.00+ a gallon for gas, too. Like diversity among believers, Atheists and Infidels come in all varieties, have a wide range of diverging views on a number of topics, and try to make the most of life while enjoying it.

The perfect return gift for those folks in our lives who are always passing out New Testaments, Qurans, or the Book of Mormon! ;)

My experiences were not at all that dissimilar to the author's.

As I tried to defend Christianity from critics I started studying apologetics. At first I did this to defend my cherished faith, however, the more I studied, the more I became dissatisfied with the answers Christians gave to defend their faith.

Slowly and almost a little bit reluctantly, I started seeing clearly the errors of Theism and starting embracing atheism.

This book is the most sensible, well laid out book I have read on this subject, and I have read quite a bit. Succinct and without all the fluff of some of the other books I have read. You don't have to be a scientist to clearly understand it.

Kudos to the author for his courage and his ability to lay it out for others so clearly.

Author, David Mills, states in the book's introduction, "...this book is intended for the 40% of Americans who, according to the New York Times poll, do recognize that there are good people (and bad people) in all religions---and with no religion. This book is written for open-minded readers who are not afraid to learn..."

First, just a little story, but true: I was raised in the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. I believed in a loving God; I envisioned Him as a stern old wise man with long white hair and beard, with the resurrected Christ Jesus, His son, by His side. I believed in Heaven and Hell---and which one I went to after I died depended on whether I accepted Jesus as my savior or not. And, I admit, as a teenager I was ashamed of the sexual desire I felt when I seen a pretty girl or even when I watched old Greta Garbo movies shown on late night tv. Then some 25 years ago, I read Joseph Campbell's book "Myths To Live By". I began to wonder if what I believed in was true. Over the years I continued my quest for the truth which was at times emotionally uncomfortable and painful. But now, at the age of 50, I finally feel totally awakened from a bad dream I slept through for so many years. I now believe people are eventually limited in knowing the whole truth (whatever it may be); but I also believe we are capable, using simple reason and logic, in realizing when shell games and smoking mirrors are being used with anceint mythological images to be passed off (and forced upon us) as historical fact and the truth. Now I believe in the divine existence of God, Allah, Yahweh, Satan, Shiva, Christ Jesus, Mohammed, Virgin Mary, a life after death in either Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, or Limbo, about as much as I believe in Santa Claus, astrology, or visiting flying saucers from outer space. Okay, I'll admit, the Bible does have a few morsels of relevant wisdom in it. The TV ministers use them quite often: "The truth shall set you FREE!" Yes, Rev. Hagee and Rev. Parsley...so it does. So it does! The freedom from psychological tyranny feels wonderful!

Okay, you 40% of Americans (and people the world over) that Mills speaks of---dive into his book! With the concepts and ideas he presents, and with your heart following an idea as simple as the Golden Rule, the veil of some traditional delusion based on fear, guilt, and superstition (e.g. the various forms of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Judaism) could be cast off along with the medival hair shirt. Imagine the amazing possibilities your life may bring! And who knows?---If enough people around the world became enlightened to think for themselves instead of having a priest, minister, rabbi, or mullah do it for them, our beautiful planet Earth along with all of us might survive some insane self-fulfilling prophesy or two (read closely the Bible's Book of Revelations if you think I'm exaggerating.) So, everyone, enjoy the day for what it is: a spendid, incredible (and, yes, sometimes chaotic and unforgiving), wonderous existence! You are alive! Live it honestly without delusion and superstition! Think for yourself!

I know this forum is suppose to be for the reviews of books, so I apoligize for getting on the old soapbox. I'm just concerned about what I see taking place around the world. And being an American, I'm seriously worried if events continue in the direction they're heading, the USA might someday be governed by a Christian theocracy---as unfortunate as Iran is now governed by an Islamic theocracy. Please, let's not let this happen.

This is a great introduction to atheism and the arguments against theism.It is written in a style that is accessible to most readers without watering down the subjects discussed.

From the first chapter this book is reader freindly.If you have ever read a book that spends chapter after chapter on just a few points,and the only thing you understood was the summarization that took just a few pages or perhaps a few paragraphs, don't worry. This is not one of those books.

Chapter one highlights the opinions of fifty famous people on religion or freedom of conscience.Chapter 2 summarizes what will be discussed in greater detail throughout the book.The topics include:
*The origin of the universe-with a great section on "cause and effect"
*The miracle of planetary clockwork.
*The miracle of life on earth.
*Answering creationists arguments.
*Can Genesis be reconciled with modern science?
*And others.

One shortcoming of the book ,in my opinion,is the last chapter entitled"Was America Really Founded on Christian Principles?".The chapter is too short to really give any worthwile account of the founding of our country and the religious beliefs of "the founders".Although many were deists,they were also nominally christian in that they belonged to particular churches,even though many did not believe in a literal interpretation of the bible,miracles,etc.

With that one caveat, I highly recommend this book.Whether you are an atheist already,a christian with some doubt, or just have an interest in atheism you will enjoy this book.
*

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Atheist Universe. If you also make the good decision to read it, you too will discover no one quite has the keen, devastating insight of David Mills. Passages from this book were quoted in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. Dawkins called David's book "an admirable work." Good read. Worth every penny.

I found the the first 6 chapters slightly disappointing. Not because they aren't well-written or thoughtful, but because they are pretty basic stuff for non-theists who have a lot of exposure to these arguments.

However, chapters 7-10 are some of the most outstanding arguments and writings I've heard to date on their subjects. I'm not going to go into detail, but chapter 8, "The Myth of Hell" is an astoundingly perceptive and pursuasive discussion on the subject of the Christian belief in Hell and why the concept itself completely obliterates all Christian perceptions of God. Of all the similar works I've read, chapter 8 is among the best. Since it's written from paragraph one by making the assumption that God DOES exist, it makes how he frames his points even better.

With all the works of what some are terming "The New Atheists," I think Mills should be proud to produce a work that I believe is worthy of sitting on anyone's shelf next to Dawkins, Hitchens...etc.
Thoughtful work. Easy Read. Highly recommended, especially to those that are just entering into freethought reading whether you're an atheist, unsure and searching or just plain curious.

There are already many good reviews, so I will only suggest reading the following works in addition to this book: a) "The Phenomenon of Religion: A Thematic Approach," by Moojan Momen (astonishingly encyclopedic); b) "Shamans, Sorcerers, and Saints: A Prehistory of Religion" by Brian Hayden (great overview of religion origins and development); c) "The God Question: What Famous Thinkers from Plato to Dawkins Have Said About the Divine" by Andrew Pessin (he makes everything sound easy in a few pages' length); and d) "Alternative Tradition: A Study of Unbelief in the Ancient World (Religion and Society)" by James A. Thrower (there were always unbelievers and sceptics).

My head is still buzzing after turning the last few pages of this book. As a Jew I've found myself questioning the Old Testament for most of my life. I found a link to God The Movie and after watching it eventually was led to this book. David Mills is not only an excellent writer but he provides sound reasoning and scientific documentation about the Old and New Testaments. Not only is this a good book for Atheists to read but is an excellent book for anyone who seeks the truth. During my reading of this book I found myself questioning Judaism and was luckily led to Humanistic Judaism, which allows Jews who wish to continue the culture and history of Judaism without a false God. Thank you David Mills. My life's journey has changed all the better because of you and my friends are still trying to figure out why I'm so excited. Little do they realize it's because I know more than most of them about the entire bible and that wouldn't have been possible without this awesome book that you have written.

David Mills has written an excellent and quick-reading guide to atheism for the practical. There is no lengthy exegesis a la George Smith here, and Thomist arguments make the brief appearance they deserve in a book about clear thinking. The rest of it is pure gold, written with a debater's needs--how "intelligent" design is illogical and a bit pitiful; how evolution is a fact, not something christians can "debate".

Atheist Universe starts off with an interview starring Mr. Mills while he is asked questions by a friendly radio host-sort of person. This is the essence of the book--the rest of it is fleshing out of the ideas presented here. A large chunk of the book's midsection is intro to evolutionary biology and cosmology. Some readers will welcome his non-science background as he explains in lay terms how science has shown no need for a god in the evolution of the universe and life on Earth.

I was really baffled about his tirade about pornography; he devotes a chapter to this seemingly unrelated topic. It really didn't seem to fit anything except a deep need of Mr. Mills to say there's nothing wrong with pornography. Many readers will agree that it may not lead to violent crime, but many will find his accepting attitude abrasive to appropriate feminist sensibilities.

I really enjoyed his quotes from famous atheists/nontheists peppered throughout the book. It helps the new skeptic understand that many are atheists, but only few can "come out of the closet" due to their fame and prestige. Give this book a read--some of it may be redundant if you're well read in atheist literature and/or science; but if this is one of your first books, it will change your life for the better!

"Atheist Universe" by David Mills represents a worthy effort that effectively refutes with clarity and simplicity many of the key arguments advanced by theists to lay claim or otherwise "prove" the existence of omnipotent supernatural entities such as, but certainly not limited to, the Christian God. It is a particularly valuable contribution primarily because of its simple presentation. The book is written at a reading level (approximately 8th grade) that is accessible to the average, reasonably intelligent person and makes its arguments without presuming that the reader is either familiar with (or interested in undertaking the painful experience of slugging through the relevant explications of) important concepts in logic, metaphysics, and epistemology as many other books on the subject of atheism/theism (e.g., see George H. Smith, "Atheism: The Case Against God". Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1980) require.

My 13 year old daughter, who pulled the Smith book off my bookshelf out of interest a few weeks ago (when she was looking for something to read), found the Smith book too laborious. In contrast, she loved "Atheist Universe." The compiled "radio show interview," treating the subject of atheism as an entertainment show opportunity, was a masterstroke that not only got her hooked into the book, but thinking in a critical way that I had yet to see her demonstrate previously.

Time and time again throughout the book, Mills demonstrates the misconceived, often vacuous, and (at times) purposefully misleading or intentionally dishonest nature of many of the arguments offered up by the true believing Christian Right (and their brethren) by explaining the logical flaws in clear language with everyday examples that the Average Joe can understand. One of my favorite discussions concerns the allusion Mills makes to winning the Lottery through simultaneous versus cumulative number matching in explaining the unscientific character of creationist claims that Evolutionary Theory is bunk or that Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory.

This book is a must read for anybody who values rational thought. When you finish this book, just as when you finish Smith's, you may choose to still believe in a deity. But you will not be able to claim that such a belief is rational without surrendering your credibility as an intelligent, thinking, or scientifically oriented person.

I discovered Mills' book after he discovered mine, and I appreciate the collegial support he has given me. It is great when atheists, independent spirits that we are, can agree and aid one another.
I am happy to have read this book. [...] Mills' book has a very different project from my own. His is a straight-forward and fun approach to the issue of the existence of god, in particular the Christian god. People who do not already know the literature on atheism will learn a lot here, and people who know all the arguments will enjoy the tone and clarity of this presentation.
There are two small things I object to in Mills' work. One is his use of the capital "He" or "Him" when talking about the Christian god and his purported son. That is what Christians do, but for those of us who do not believe there is a god or that he ever had a son, I see no reason to conform to their style. [...]The other is his use of the word "belief" when no belief is at issue at all. Atheists do not "believe" there is no god; they conclude so from good evidence. Scientists do not "believe" in evolution; evolution is a good conclusion from solid evidence. Nor does a person "believe" that their foot is at the end of their leg nor that liver tastes bad. Those are not matters of "belief" at all. I think it is really important for us to separate belief from knowledge and all the other things that are not belief in any way. What is left for belief is claims that are either based on no evidence or actually fly in the fact of contradictory evidence.
[...]

Having not much of an idea what to expect when I ordered the book (from the store, natch) I have to admit I was a little wary when it arrived and I discovered that "Atheist Universe" is a self-published book. There is essentially not much difference between self-publishing and blogs--you can get either an erudite commentator or a total crackpot. I'm pleased to report that David Mills is far more of the former. The book's second chapter, "Interview with an Atheist," didn't set my mind at ease, as it's a Q&A from an interviewer(s) that is never identified. The answers provided to the questions would have worked much better on their own, and in this context it came off as a little awkward. After that uncomfortable start, matters start to get much more interesting, as Mr. Mills settles into a casual, mostly jargon-free defense of evolution and the scientific method and launches logic-bombs against creationists, fundamentalists and other agents of pious unreason. His reasoning and logic are clear enough for anyone smarter than Jerry Falwell to comprehend, and he declines most any attempt at name calling and ridicule (unlike me--I would also like to note that Rick Santorum is dumber than a mixture of lube and fecal matter, but I digress).

Many chapters are devoted to various cosmological theories--the Big Bang, Einsteinian relativity, etc. and a few more to the basics of evolution, such as the geologic column, which proves that the earth is a helluva lot older than the 6000 odd years that are claimed in the bible. Mills doesn't spend much time on the various legal battles being waged by creationists to force their views into the nation's science classes, but of course this is still an ongoing story, much to the chagrin of any reasonable person of any religious persuasion. Of course, the point of the book is to perhaps convince any reasonable people of any religious persuasion to just give apostasy a chance. I wouldn't say the book is "evangelical" or anything, but in a nation which believes in fairy tales bereft of any scintilla of evidence more than actual science perhaps changing a mind or two would be a good thing. If you're an agnostic or a fence-sitter, he's trying to talk to you. Whether you choose to listen is entirely up to you.

A couple of nits to be picked: 1. Mr. Mills capitalizes the pronoun form of God or Jesus (i.e., He or Him) when they really don't deserve the honour. 2. In a book written after 9/11, it seems rather odd to keep his attention exclusively on Christianity, when as we have seen there are far more dangerous religious practices to be picked apart (for a more thorough dismantling of Islam, refer to "The End Of Faith" by Sam Harris). 3. One chapter is devoted to the fight against internet porn, which is perhaps a good free speech issue, but is it really worth devoting so much energy to in the long run? I mean, porn is as popular in the red states as the blue, and any attempt to rid the world of it would be futile, anyway.

But aside from those small quibbles, this book is a surprisingly insightful primer on a philosophy that is so often demonized by the public at large.

As a person that reads at a near-constant and accelerated rate, I figured that the 255 page book plus some forewords and such wouldn't be a challenge whatsoever. Granted, my lifestyle has changed a good deal but I've only gained additional free time with the change, rather than lost it. I breezed through the first half of this book. I feel like the last half is a re-hash of the first, just expanded a minute bit. I've been on the last 100 or so pages for about 4 weeks now and just finished it up today. Having not read any religion-based literature may have impacted my timing as well but I just can't escape the notion that it could've been a bit shorter, better condensed writing.

I've been an atheist for about 3 years now and am just "growing" in my knowledge of the natural world and the reasons/speculations of how it came to be. I've purchased Dawkins' "The God Delusion" so we'll see how this works stacks up with that.

Mills' book is an outstanding book that looks at the Atheistic universe. The book, which will be a smorgasbord of information for the beginning Atheist, a delight to read for the lifetime Atheist, and a resource for the questioning theist, has it all. Mills' book dives in full-tilt into subjects like "fine tuning," the "god of the gaps," the "miracle" of life, creationism, Hell, miracles, and many others. Mills' creative writing style, which doesn't require a PhD to understand, mixed with his use of humor and witty sarcasm (where appropriate) makes the book fun to read. Mills also leaves nothing to be desired when tackling the issues in his book. Mills does not hold back in discrediting creationism's claim to be scientific and says what needs to be said. In other words, Mills gets straight to the point. The book includes an "Interview with an Atheist" that covers a lot of the questions that people have when they first meet an Atheist. Mills then goes into chapter after chapter breaking these questions down further and expanding greatly on the answers to give the reader a greater idea of what Atheism is, what Atheism is not, and why Atheism is a justified and rational position for anyone to hold. You may or may not agree with everything that Mills has to say in his book, but you will not be lacking when it comes to a read that is both thought provoking and entertaining.

Blair Scott

Alabama State Director, American Atheists

Director, Alabama Atheist

Creator, Atheism Awareness

Columnist, Bible Belt Blasphemy

I was expecting more of a "beatdown" on Christianity...more scientific and historical facts. Instead I got the actual contents of this book, which ended up being refreshingly different than what I had expected to find. The book focuses primarily on science for arguments, and is very simplified to reach a wide range of audiences. In this sense, this is an outstanding book. Mills does an excellenct job in communicating his work. He appears to be very patient and kind with Christians/Christianity, but at the same is very honest and open about his feelings towards the subject.

Concering specific parts of the book, I found myself more interested in the latter chapters, namely CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS AND THE "DANGER" OF INTERNET PORN and "INTELLIGENT DESIGN": CHRISTIANITY'S NEWEST CULT. The whole book is good, but these chapters offered me some perspectives I had never previously considered. The chapter on intelligent design pointed to what I knew was faulty about intelligent design but just couldn't put my finger on. This book is such a great source for those wishing to understand science or atheism, because you won't get it in any clearer terms than this. I really liked the book, but I feel David could have addressed so much more. I am hoping he decides to write a sequel to this book in the future.

I would give this book 5 stars for bringing arguments against theism in general and Biblical/Quranic theism in particular to the fore. I'm not the deepest thinker and had read the Bible several times as a true believer, and it was not until I came across viewpoints of nonbelievers about the Bible that I began my journey away from religious faith. So I would recommend the book to help atheists point out things about the Bible/Biblical view of the world to believers that might make them think a little harder.

I would give this book 2 stars when it comes to backing up his assertions about the opposition. I read a lot of "ID people" this and "ID backers" that, but there was nary a footnote to be seen. WHERE do they say these things? WHO makes these claims? It would have been nice to see the points backed up with references.

I would give the book 1 star when it comes to some of his politics. I don't know why people tend to equate atheism with liberalism. I know pro-life atheists, pro-gun atheists, etc. And being an atheist does not mean one has a slavish love of the 1st amendment or thinks porn is okay for kids. Mr. Mills makes the argument that children watching porn is not a big deal and I got a headache from rolling my eyes. His argument that kids don't have libidos and are only 'curious'about sex is so dumb. Maybe that is true with little girls (he has a daighter), but as the mother of boys I can tell you -- even little kids have libidos. He also acts as though internet porn is nothing more than photos of pretty girls who are naked. Does he really think that a 6 or 7-year-old boy watching internet porn won't have a negative effect? He opposes filters and such on computers or monitoring of websites and thinks that kids have to actively seek out porn to see it. I have my computer filtered and I still get pop-up ads for porn sites, so why wouldn't a kid?

So I give this book an average of 3 stars. Like a lot of books by atheists, whether they be Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, or Mills, you can take what you want from the book and use it and throw the rest away.

Although I do share many of the same views as the author, I found the format insulting to my intelligience. Before actually buying this book, I read the foreword (of this book), by Dorion Sagan. I was so impressed and laughing so much, that I could not wait to bring the book home. When I read the rest, I was extremely disappointed. The first chapter, "Interview with an Athiest", was neither entertaining nor informative. The rest of the book did not improve. It seemed more opinion based than factual. I agree with Joseph Izzo's review, that the logic was just plain silly; the kind that bores you, not entertains you.

This is one of my favorites, and just one niche behind Dan Barkers "Godless" in quality of the arguments. Absolutely brilliant case against theism, and covers all sides of the debate: science and philosophy. I think I learned more about the physics of the "big bang" from this book than I did from my college professors (not really, but you get the point)! Anyway, great book, great read, highly recommended along with Dan Barkers "Godless". Definitely an asset to any agnostic or atheist book collection.

This book covers the typical atheist argumentation. As such it discusses at great length the inconsistencies of Christian fundamentalism. Of course by far not all theists are Christian fundamentalists and it is a gross error to equate theism with Christian fundamentalism. Many theists experience a spiritual reality with God as its sustaining ground - and find the light of that spirit in their experience of beauty and love as well as in many of the great religious traditions including, for some of them, in the ethics of Jesus as described in the New Testament. Such stronger theistic views are not even touched upon in this book. Here the reader will strictly find a description of naive theism and, correspondingly, naive atheism. As such it's an interesting book because the reader will understand how many atheists think, including their woolly belief that they are all such groovy people.

The book suffers from some inconsistencies itself. When discussing science the writer correctly explains that physical laws are simply descriptions of physical phenomena, and that there is no such thing as a physical law that physical things must obey. (Incidentally this view also helps atheism avoid the question of who is the lawgiver and of how come these laws are so precisely adapted for the evolution of life). But a few chapters later when discussing the idea of a creator god he argues that it contradicts science: matter cannot be created from nothing because it would contradict the conversation laws you see. So suddenly there are physical laws that must be obeyed after all, even at such extremes as the big bang. Actually, as is often the case with people who do not understand science very well, the author has a dogmatic understanding of physical laws. Physicists have no trouble at all proposing models of physical reality, such as the multiverse, where a huge number of entire universes with the same mass as ours are supposed to come into existence every single second, a view that breaks conversation laws as much as they can be broken.

Another example, which I have always found demonstrates a superficial not to say mean streak in popular atheism, is the argument that Jesus did not even exist as a historical person. It's reasonable to think that much of what is written about Jesus is mythological in nature, but it is difficult to imagine how a major religion would start based on a person who did not even exist (and even if it were true it would be irrelevant to the basic theistic position anyway). Significantly this view is also contrary to the view of the vast majority of historians. So here again the author exemplifies the selective use of science. This view also goes against common sense: it's true that there are no objective historical documents about Jesus written at his time, but there are also no such documents about the start of Christianity either - which surely does not imply that start of Christianity did not happen.

I also sensed a whiff of intellectual dishonesty in his discussion of evolution. It's a matter of fact that the theory of evolution does not explain the evolution of life itself, but only the evolution of the species - just as Darwin's book says up there in its title. Science has not yet explained how life itself started, i.e. how the very first biological organisms came into being so that the evolution of the species could begin. The question about how life started is mentioned in the book and then an answer is concocted which is designed to give the reader the impression that science already more or less knows how life started and that there are no big scientific questions to be solved. This is completely incorrect, and I find it impossible to believe that the author was not aware of that. Here he evidences that atheists can sometimes be as dogmatic and suffering of selective blindness as fundamentalists.

In the otherwise quite interesting chapter about "Fifty famous people who criticized religion" we read that Bill Clinton has said "We have the most religious freedom in any country in the world, including the freedom not to believe." Fine - but how is this criticizing religion? More misleadingly we have this quote by the deeply religious Albert Schweitzer, introduced here as a French (!) philosopher: "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence". Of course Schweitzer was not in any way, shape or color implying that Jesus did not exist, and it is not quite clear either where in this quote he is criticizing religion. In any case many people use "religion" as synonymous for "religious institutions", so criticizing religion is mostly irrelevant to theism anyway.

All in all I cannot recommend this book because it does not discuss the strongest ideas neither of atheism nor of theism. Read it only if you want to learn what reasons atheists have for not becoming fundamentalist Christians, or if you want to acquaint yourself with the popular atheistic mentality. But if you want to understand atheism's reasoning there are much better books out there.

I have finished reading this book and I feel that its simple, yet logical arguments for stating the atheistic point of view are perfectly outlined for any one to benefit from. I have a large library on atheistic books, and though I acknowledge Mills simple way of writing, I really believe that the reason for this is to be able to reach a more wide audience by not boring them with overtly complex philosophical argumentation. This is one point that authors on atheistic subjects need to address in order to reach a more broad audience, and in this respect Mills does a superb job. Many Christian friends and relatives, who have an atheist "black sheep" in the family, will surely benefit from this book in trying to understand their atheistic view point. It saddens me that many reviewers don't seem to have even read the book and yet are so critical of it. I myself was a devoted Christian for 40 years, baptized, at age 20 and member of the church choir. But one day I took that brave step to start reading and educating my self on the reasons of why there were so many non-believers out there. Just by starting this simple desire for knowledge, brought me to the realization that I just couldn't believe any more the Christian mumbo-jumbo that I have been taught since childhood. But Christians should read this book with an open mind in order to grasp the message. Why children should be subjected to cruel religious indoctrination that includes burning in Hell (of which an excellent chapter rebuts ) that persists even during adulthood before they are able to make a critically well thought decisions by them selves is beyond me, but reading this book is a way to try to solve the problem.

A clear, concise, well-written, thoroughly researched "bible" for atheist, agnostics, skeptics and the like; full of wit and wisdom! I couldn't put it down...I was engrossed and hungrily devoured it!

Although, I never find it necessary to defend my system of thought to anyone, there are times that I am required to inject or share my opinion and it is those times that Mr. Mills' superbly crafted book prepares one for...

You won't be disappointed...and I suspect Ingersoll, Sagan and even those free-thinking "Founding Fathers" of ours would be totally engaged by and thoroughly pleased with this project. So go on and treat yourself...an open mind is a terrible thing to waste! Indulge your skepticism!

One of my favorite chapters is "The Myth of Hell". Here, in talking about whether sending people to hell as punishment would fit the crime, Mills wrties "Let's suppose that, during a person's particularly mischevious lifetime, he commits a sum total of 100,000 sins, each of which God avenges singularly through fiery torture. If a 'sinner' were sentenced to one year of uninterrupted torture for each sin he committed-an unimaginably sadistic judgment-that his punishment would be over in 100,000 years. But, according to Christian doctrine, the torture continues longer than 100,000 years.....Even a million years of torture per offense would be a light sentence compared to everlasting torture. So if you'd perfer to watch football on Sunday, instead of going to church, then you will be tortured more than a million years for this single offense."

Mills also shows quotes from many great people in history criticizing religion including Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Napoleon Bonaparte, Ganhdi and others. In another part of the book Mills says even if he personally witnessed John F. Kennedy get out of his coffin and start walking that he would think that A) he had gone insane, B) it wasn't Kennedy, C) he was witnessing the filming of a movie, D)someone had slipped him a hellucinogenic drug or E) he was making the whole thing up long before he would actually believe the John F. Kennedy had risen from the dead. Mills concludes that a natural explanation of the orgins of our universe, no matter how far fetched, is infinetley more plausible than a supernatural one.

These are just examples of the gems you'll find in this book. Agree or not, you must concede that Mills makes some strong arguments and delivers them with clarity and wit.

David Mill's excellent book, "Atheist Universe,"offers a refreshing, lucid, and insightful view of one of the most important ideas in the history of science - evolution. After reading this superb book, anyone with prior qualms about the scientific validity of evolution should be convinced that important scientific concept provides the explanation for the origin of species and the diversity of life on the planet. This book represents a very successful attempt to assist us all, especially the layman, in understanding the scientific basis for evolution - an understanding essential to all inquisitive people. Atheist Universe provides a powerful antidote to those who may have been lead to imagine there is a controversy in the scientific community over evolution. Anyone who wishes to be in touch with his or her humanity should be thoroughly familiar with the evolutionary origins of human beings and with the process that created the diversity of life around us. Mills makes it abundantly the Creation (pseudo)Science is a dogmatic view that attempts to rob people of the glory of their true origins. For its content and foundations, Mills draws judiciously on science, history, and religion with a clarity that enables the general reader without a science background, as well as high school students and their teachers, to understand the argument from the first page to the last. I highly recommend Atheist Universe.

Louis W. Cable

I just finished David Mills' Atheist Universe, and I must say I enjoyed it. I believe he covers most of the big issues well, and certainly has a good grasp of the prevailing scientific thinking of the origins of the universe, the process of evolution, and the logic (or illogic) of most religions.

Having said that, I thought there were two chapters that I could do without: the chapter on Hell, and the chapter on internet porn.

The chapter on Hell seemed overthought and unnecessary. I'm not sure that so much effort needed to go into dissecting an imaginary place.

The chapter on internet porn I felt was simply out of place. I happen to agree with virtually all of it, but it seemed a strange thing to find in a book primarily about the absence of a god's hand in the creation of the universe.

One thing about this book struck me as I read it: when it's good, it's extremely good. I found it much more accessible than George Smith's "Atheism:The Case Against God." Smith's work is probably more scholarly, but not as easy to get through.

I suggest buying this book, but in case you want a brief synopsis, here it is:

There is no God.

Jesus probably didn't exist, but even if he did, his daddy didn't create the universe.

There is no heaven. There is no hell.

Porn doesn't cause crime.

Edwin Meese has a fantastic porn collection.

The end.

This book was full of such good scientific information and it was written so well. It was full of information I have been trying to find in many other books out there, but this author puts it clearly and bluntly right out there & I would recommend this book to believers and non-believers alike, just for a learning experience.

The book is not insulting to believers, but just states the opinion and "facts" the author is trying to make. I like the point the author makes that atheists & religious people are really just peas in a pod trying to figure this mystery out!

For me, I still believe in God, because it ultimately comes down to the question of where did it all start, who created the very first bit of existence. No matter what discussion you have with anyone about the existence of God, it always comes down to that, who created our universe? And, either you have faith that there is a God that created it all, or you don't. I have that faith, but respect that some people don't. Either way, I learned a lot reading this book and have a lot of respect for the author.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. A good read from a calm rational skeptic and atheist. The arguments against Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Biblical silliness were concise and even-handed. As I read more books concerning theological fallacies, as well as the Creationist/ID vs. Evolution debate, I appreciate the similar arguments the various atheists present. I like to consider myself well-informed, and repetition of ideas is a good way to do it. These arguments, which oppose the IDers, such as the complexity of the eye, the bacterial flagellum, and the usefulness of `half of a wing', become clearer to me after repeated exposure to varying perspectives. He adds his own thoughts, facts, and observations into the mix, keeping the topic fresh.

Mr. Mills offers some concise and persuasive details pertaining to the geologic column of sedimentary rock and the fossil record. He gives a nice rebuttal of the Creationists argument concerning the Cambrian Explosion.

He describes the physics of the universe and its origin in just 12 pages. This is too brief to offer a lot of depth, but is a swift overview of Stephen Hawkins' (and others) description of 'vacuum fluctuation.' After reading Victor Stengers' excellent physics-heavy book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis"(highly recommended), this quick recap made a lot of sense.

Mr. Mills, in this brief (a bit too brief for me. I was so enjoying the read) 272 page book, tackles not inlythe Creationist/ID/young earth arguments, but offers his insights into Miracles, the myth of hell, even Internet Porn.

Still, my favorite chapter was the Chapter One, titled, Interview with an Atheist. He comes across as very open, modest, and intellectually honest.

The layout and editing was tight. Overall, this is a very satisfying read.

This book puts into layman's terms all of the major scientific arguments which expose the fallacy of Creationism, in particularly as disguised by the term "Intelligent Design". It's like witnessing the whole of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic doctrine which originates from biblical myths, completely shattered in a debate. The irony I find here is the many "reviews" found at the store, which are written by people who have obviously not even read the book. Negative feedback should be welcome, and makes for healthy discussion; however, it's annoying to see people who don't feel the slightest inhibition in showing how irrational many theists are when trying to defend absurdities in their religious doctrines. I highly recommend this book to anyone seeking a clearer understanding of the Atheist position.

I have read numerous books on atheism, including the recent works of Dawkins, Dennett and Harris, but David Mills' "Atheist Universe" trumps them all. Why? Because in a little over 250 concisely-written pages, Mills takes on virtually every major idea espoused by Christian apologists (loving God, six-day Creation, morals from God, perfectly-fine-tuned Earth, etc.) and rebuts them in a way that is both clear and entertaining. Unlike Dawkins and Harris (who often come across as sarcastic and mean-spirited) and Dennett (who is far too apologetic), Mills explores philosophical and scientific arguments for and against the tenants of Christianity in a way that will both reassure skeptics and possibly, just possibly, induce a few believers to question their largely unexamined beliefs. His description of natural selection is one of the best I've read in any popular work of science, so simple that even the scientifically-challenged should be able to grasp it. (His lottery analogy is so basic it's brilliant.) Mills is also good in exposing so-called "Intelligent Design" for the sham that it is: warmed over Creationism with a pseudo-scientific veneer. If you come away from the chapter on ID--the book's longest--still believing that God fills in the gaps when science "comes up short," then there is no hope for you.

All in all, this is an intelligent yet easy-to-read work that every skeptic should treasure and every believer should read.

As a former xtian and now atheist, this book has helped me confirm a lot of what I already thought and as well explain atheism in much better terms. Xtians claim to be confident about their beliefs but when books like these are published they head for the hills. I'm only sorry that I didn't discover this book during my xtian days, because I would have converted much sooner if I have! Its worth a look, and its one of the best after "Atheism: The Case Against God."

As a mildly observant Jew, I had blindly accepted the premise that God is all knowing, all wise and all caring. Without giving much thought as to the validity of the bible, I had accepted at blind faith most of the beliefs about what I am supposed to know about this being we collectively call God. In the last few months I have been reading and listening to many excellent scientific and atheist sources such as Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I shall now add David Mills to this highly respected list. This book intelligently answers many of the questions that have been going through my head for years. David's explanation from modern science concerning the principle that matter was NOT created at the time of the big bang was a real revelation. Just understanding that all energy was already present but in a different form at the big bang dismisses the millenia held belief that God created all matter in one fell sweep. There are so many compelling arguments in this book that it is impossible for me to have any belief in God again. David, thanks for an amazing book!

Mills successfully and articulately puts down all the things I want to tell people about my beliefs--or lack thereof. As an atheist, I recommend this book to people hoping to gain an understanding on my outlook of the world.

It seems most books on atheism have authors who tackle the subject from the perspective of the field they came from such as biology, philosophy, anthropology, etc. This can lead to sometimes dry or slightly confusing passages. This author strives to keep the terms simple and there were only a couple of places in the book where I went back to re-read something to make sure I understood an analogy. In addition to a great discussion of atheism throughout the book, you also get famous quotes, a give-and-take interview about atheism, and a whole section talking about the Intelligent Design movement and how it is really just Creationism with a new coat of paint.

If you are someone who is curious about atheism and thinking about learning more about it, this is an excellent first step. And no you shouldn't have to hide it under your mattress...because it means you care about the possible answers to some of the big questions. Researching and thinking beats out blindly following one way or another out of tradition every time.

This book is well written and easy to follow. I couldn't put it down after the first chapter. There's no beating around the bush in this book. It's up to date on the latest scientific discoveries, and provides new ideas even for long time Atheists.

The book covers in-depth, the long debate between Creationists and Evolutionists. It provides good insight into the flaws of Creationist thinking, with strong arguments.

One of my favorite chapters is "Can Genesis Be Reconciled with Modern Science". This chapter not only provides strong evidence as to why these two cannot mix together, but even goes as far as showing Bible texts which talk about Unicorns and Dragons, which with new current translations of the Bible have been removed or called something else. I found this information very revealing. While "double-checking" these references I also found some other holes in the Job chapters.

In the end this book will surely provide a good solid case of why this Mythical God cannot exist.

Have you ever found yourself searching for the type of book that captures you from the Introduction all the way through to the Index? This book accomplishes just that. In an almost surreal way, the reader experiences a multiplicity of feelings while reading. I became quickly aware that the author has a unique talent by which his facts and thoughts were carefully and fully detailed, while the playful wit and easy-to-read pattern of writing made what was most apparently a careful labor of love into what is also a fantastic manner of translating his thoughts.

This book is as close to a "freethinkers bible" as any I can imagine for most people who are lucky enough to come across it and enjoy its splendor. The author blends humor, wit, facts and personal critique in a soup of intellectual reading that would rate as a 10 if it were on a menu!

No words can do this book true justice. You must read it personally...and then sit for hours postulating the clever analysis of religion and beliefism by this writer. Everyone is certain to find at least a handful of brilliant gems of facts and ideas throughout this read with which to proudly and playfully share with the world. This is a great book folks...

He says: Come on Mills, get out of fantasy land, Christianity is synonymous with freedom and freedom of thought. Ha, ha, has he read NO history? Does the Inquisition mean nothing to him? Giordano Bruno? Galileo? et al et al?

This book has become a classic in the freethought world. I'd heard of it over a year ago but didn't read it until now. A fact that's been overlooked in the reviews I've scanned here on the store is the humor within the pages of the book. Let me give you a sample of David Miller's wit from page 52 of the paperback version:

"Today some say that Jesus died
And still remains quite dead.
But those who speak have surely lied.
The real truth is, instead,
That Jesus Christ, Whose blood was spilled
Is no corpse -- I insist!
For how could someone have been killed
Who never did exist?"

Although this is the book's only poem, there are many such illustrations of humor used to make valid points against Christian fundamentalism. As a former fundamentalist myself -- Where have you heard this story before? -- I appreciated Miller's focus on debunking the church's most ridiculous teachings, like the existence of a literal hell or the belief that earth is 6000 years old. (If the reviewer below wanted some insanely complex analysis of deism or pantheism, then, I agree, he should have gone elsewhere. But this book was never advertised as anything but a popularly written rebuttal of fundamentalism.)

For me, the book delivered as promised. It was a wonderful read and addressed many fascinating and relevant issues which had presented themselves in my own personal struggle. It is fundamentalism, rather than some abstract philosophical debate using symbolic logic, that threatens our nation today. This book is a must-read for those who, like me, are saturated each day with the propaganda of the religious right. The writing is clear, concise and persuasive.

I'm an atheist and I think there is a need for books on disbelief that is only beginning to be filled by the "New Atheist" books, but there is much that is wrong with Mills' contribution. There are a few positive points, thus my rating of 3 stars, and probably it's why Richard Dawkins could only say it was an "admirable work", as noted on the book's cover.

As others have noted the book's biggest failing is in the level of research, especially in the sections having to do with science. Mills is not a scientist of any kind but one has a right to expect much better fact-checking. In those parts of the book it seemed like I was encountering a major factual error on every page. Examples: He claims that modern-day fundamentalists have a problem with the planets having elliptical (non-circular) orbits. Where in the world does he get *that* ??? There is a big chapter on "Intelligent Design" and it is utterly confused. It's hard to tell what he thinks the term "ID" *means* except for a vague modern notion of what God has created. There's no mention of the Discovery Institute and very short mention of Michael Behe. Has Mills been keeping up with *anything* in the news, on the blogs or talk.origins? Mills thinks that ID-ists are all in agreement with the standard ages of the universe and earth. Again, where does he get this? ID proponents hold all kinds of views on the ages of the Universe, Earth and life; this of course is the sleazy "Big Tent" strategy of ID. Mills thinks he's qualified to talk about cosmology and he's very wrong. He should let a professional like Victor Stenger handle this, but there's no reference to Stenger anywhere! Frankly I felt a bit embarrassed with all of the inaccuracies; I don't want religious apologists to think this is typical of us!

The book mainly deals with fundamentalists of the kind Mills probably encounters every day in West Virginia, but not all believers are of this sort. Richard Dawkins took a lot of heat from his "fleas" for only dealing with the sort of religion where God actually *does* something. Well, Dawkins was right... the real world is not like the ivory towers of those polite and nebulous Anglican theologians. But there are many mainstream Christians who have real beliefs but would not recognize the kind of Hell-fire and brimstone religion that Mills is criticizing.

On the positive side, the book does have a simple, clear tone (spoiled by a few lapses into vulgarity) that would be perfect for anyone who is starting to ask some common-sense questions about fundamentalist dogma, but if you've gotten through Harris and Dawkins' books you won't find much that is new here. I think the best use for this book would be to give it to that precocious 16-year old who is beginning to question the dogma of his/her church and who needs reassurance that s/he *is* asking sensible questions. But this young person would need to be cautioned that though Mills' conclusions do hold up in the end, much of the scientific information is misleading and that there are other sources one should turn to for the tough questions. Someone needs to write a really good book for that young skeptic but this one isn't it.

A very good book detailing both sides of an otherwise convoluted subject. Written for the average - laymen - person, I was able to comprehend the creationist position and its self-contradictions, as well as the strengths and clarity of scientific fact. What I took away form this very enjoyable read was that the short comings of blind faith and the philosophies that support it have no place in a class room especially a scientific one, nor in the running of a state; and most importantly, why.

Have you ever found yourself searching for the type of book that captures you from the Introduction all the way through to the Index? This book accomplishes just that. In an almost surreal way, the reader experiences a multiplicity of feelings while reading. I became quickly aware that the author has a unique talent by which his facts and thoughts were carefully and fully detailed, while the playful wit and easy-to-read pattern of writing made what was most apparently a careful labor of love into what is also a fantastic manner of translating his thoughts.

This book is as close to a "freethinkers bible" as any I can imagine for most people who are lucky enough to come across it and enjoy its splendor. The author blends humor, wit, facts and personal critique in a soup of intellectual reading that would rate as a 10 if it were on a menu!

No words can do this book true justice. You must read it personally...and then sit for hours postulating the clever analysis of religion and beliefism by this writer. Everyone is certain to find at least a handful of brilliant gems of facts and ideas throughout this read with which to proudly and playfully share with the world. This is a great book folks...

He says: Come on Mills, get out of fantasy land, Christianity is synonymous with freedom and freedom of thought. Ha, ha, has he read NO history? Does the Inquisition mean nothing to him? Giordano Bruno? Galileo? et al et al?

This book has become a classic in the freethought world. I'd heard of it over a year ago but didn't read it until now. A fact that's been overlooked in the reviews I've scanned here on the store is the humor within the pages of the book. Let me give you a sample of David Miller's wit from page 52 of the paperback version:

"Today some say that Jesus died
And still remains quite dead.
But those who speak have surely lied.
The real truth is, instead,
That Jesus Christ, Whose blood was spilled
Is no corpse -- I insist!
For how could someone have been killed
Who never did exist?"

Although this is the book's only poem, there are many such illustrations of humor used to make valid points against Christian fundamentalism. As a former fundamentalist myself -- Where have you heard this story before? -- I appreciated Miller's focus on debunking the church's most ridiculous teachings, like the existence of a literal hell or the belief that earth is 6000 years old. (If the reviewer below wanted some insanely complex analysis of deism or pantheism, then, I agree, he should have gone elsewhere. But this book was never advertised as anything but a popularly written rebuttal of fundamentalism.)

For me, the book delivered as promised. It was a wonderful read and addressed many fascinating and relevant issues which had presented themselves in my own personal struggle. It is fundamentalism, rather than some abstract philosophical debate using symbolic logic, that threatens our nation today. This book is a must-read for those who, like me, are saturated each day with the propaganda of the religious right. The writing is clear, concise and persuasive.

I'm an atheist and I think there is a need for books on disbelief that is only beginning to be filled by the "New Atheist" books, but there is much that is wrong with Mills' contribution. There are a few positive points, thus my rating of 3 stars, and probably it's why Richard Dawkins could only say it was an "admirable work", as noted on the book's cover.

As others have noted the book's biggest failing is in the level of research, especially in the sections having to do with science. Mills is not a scientist of any kind but one has a right to expect much better fact-checking. In those parts of the book it seemed like I was encountering a major factual error on every page. Examples: He claims that modern-day fundamentalists have a problem with the planets having elliptical (non-circular) orbits. Where in the world does he get *that* ??? There is a big chapter on "Intelligent Design" and it is utterly confused. It's hard to tell what he thinks the term "ID" *means* except for a vague modern notion of what God has created. There's no mention of the Discovery Institute and very short mention of Michael Behe. Has Mills been keeping up with *anything* in the news, on the blogs or talk.origins? Mills thinks that ID-ists are all in agreement with the standard ages of the universe and earth. Again, where does he get this? ID proponents hold all kinds of views on the ages of the Universe, Earth and life; this of course is the sleazy "Big Tent" strategy of ID. Mills thinks he's qualified to talk about cosmology and he's very wrong. He should let a professional like Victor Stenger handle this, but there's no reference to Stenger anywhere! Frankly I felt a bit embarrassed with all of the inaccuracies; I don't want religious apologists to think this is typical of us!

The book mainly deals with fundamentalists of the kind Mills probably encounters every day in West Virginia, but not all believers are of this sort. Richard Dawkins took a lot of heat from his "fleas" for only dealing with the sort of religion where God actually *does* something. Well, Dawkins was right... the real world is not like the ivory towers of those polite and nebulous Anglican theologians. But there are many mainstream Christians who have real beliefs but would not recognize the kind of Hell-fire and brimstone religion that Mills is criticizing.

On the positive side, the book does have a simple, clear tone (spoiled by a few lapses into vulgarity) that would be perfect for anyone who is starting to ask some common-sense questions about fundamentalist dogma, but if you've gotten through Harris and Dawkins' books you won't find much that is new here. I think the best use for this book would be to give it to that precocious 16-year old who is beginning to question the dogma of his/her church and who needs reassurance that s/he *is* asking sensible questions. But this young person would need to be cautioned that though Mills' conclusions do hold up in the end, much of the scientific information is misleading and that there are other sources one should turn to for the tough questions. Someone needs to write a really good book for that young skeptic but this one isn't it.

A very good book detailing both sides of an otherwise convoluted subject. Written for the average - laymen - person, I was able to comprehend the creationist position and its self-contradictions, as well as the strengths and clarity of scientific fact. What I took away form this very enjoyable read was that the short comings of blind faith and the philosophies that support it have no place in a class room especially a scientific one, nor in the running of a state; and most importantly, why.

This book is a convincing argument that there is no god. Mills examines the bible and explains what it says about creation and the great flood. He then uses scientific principles and evidence to show that it is impossible for these things to have happened the way the bible said they did.

Mills also looks at the arguments that religious people use to "prove" god exists. He then uses logic, science, and the Bible itself to refute these arguments.

Some of the information in this book requires a basic education in science, good reasoning skills, and the ability to use and understand logic. It is not a book for uneducated or stupid people.

The only thing I did not like about it is the first chapter "Fifty Famous People Who Criticized Religion". It goes on and on and doesn't prove anything. I would like it much better if there was a list of famous atheists and 10 to 15 really good quotes.

Overall it is a great book. It is funny, easy to read, well written and organized, and thorough.

Side Note: It is hilarious how some negative reviewers of this book use the exact type of worthless reasoning that the book says they use. These reviewers, while trying to refute this book, actually prove some of the books points. Hilarious.

The anonymous "scientist-reviewer" below has made precisely the error in logic that David Mills describes in his book as a common psychological misperception among Christians. (Did the reviewer even possess or read the newly added section rebutting Intelligent Design? It seems unlikely.) Like most advocates of Intelligent Design, the reviewer cleverly avoids mentioning the Christian God, pretending that science alone is guiding his quest for "knowledge."

Needless to say, the "scientist-reviewer" has incorporated into his starting premise the conclusion he claims to be proving. He began his argument by ASSUMING that mass-energy did not always exist and that the universe therefore popped into existence ex nihilo (out of nothing). Of course such an event would require supernatural intervention. Mills doesn't dispute that fact. Neither does anyone else. But the question of whether mass-energy always existed is the very issue under debate! Thus, the "scientist-reviewer" builds his "scientific" argument upon a premise which he has failed to demonstrate, or even attempted to demonstrate. Big Bang theory, as Mills points out, argues only that mass-energy began its current expansion approximately 14 billion years ago. The "scientist-reviewer" has not shown that mass-energy did not always exist (not that such a conclusion would bolster his religious beliefs notwithstanding). "Atheist Universe" clearly discusses this complex issue at great length for those whose critical faculties are not forever paralyzed by religious adherence.

The "scientist-reviewer" cites Stephen Hawking -- whose work he has read so carelessly that he can't even spell Hawking's name correctly (though I'm sure he'll correct it now) -- and Roger Penrose, and the reviewer tacitly implies that Hawking and Penrose agree that an Intelligent Designer planned and created the universe out of nothing. Neither Hawking nor Penrose, however, believes in a Personal Deity or in a supernatural creative force. As with "Atheist Universe," the "scientist-reviewer" has completely misunderstood and misrepresented what he has allegedly read.

The Dover case revealed the folly of Intelligent Design's being a "science." For those who delusionally imagine themselves to be both religious- AND science-minded individuals, this was a difficult reality to accept.

Jonathon K. Adkins
New Haven, CT

UPDATE: I was unaware, until now, that the store permitted the same individual to write two separate reviews of the same book (both below and above this review). At least this double-dipper had the honesty to confess this fact and the integrity to admit in his second sermon (above) that he was presenting the hackneyed First Cause chestnut, which "Atheist Universe," and thousands of other books, quickly and thoroughly rebut.

Atheism has long been a misunderstood concept. Primarily, Christians, but other religions as well, have shaken their heads disapprovingly at Atheist because they just can't understand why a person wouldn't believe in their personal invisible friend. David Mills works to combat the faith-minded individual with facts. This book is a must for anyone interested in facts and reason. And for the Christians, it might give you an insight into why Atheists believe in themselves instead of theology.

I saw this review of Atheist Universe posted elsewhere online, and it so perfectly summarized my own thoughts on the book that I wanted to post it here as well:

"Not since Bertrand Russell's historic volume half a century ago have I read such an on-target, direct bull's-eye piercing Christian mythology. Atheist Universe says what every freethinker knows but lacks the eloquence and technical knowledge to successfully articulate. The book is supremely well-written and pristine in logic. There are twelve independent chapters, each of which would make a devastating attack on mysticism by itself. Taken together, however, the book provides evidence lambasting the God myth unlike any other atheist book in my memory. In ways, it is superior even to Russell's work because this book contains up-to-date science rebutting the newest nonsense of the Intelligent-Design and Creationist movements.

"By the author's own account, he required over three years to write this volume. His focus on meticulous detail truly shows throughout the book. Chapter 2, "Interview with an Atheist," is, in my opinion, the single best defense of the atheist philosophy available in print today. This book is scholarly yet friendly and popular in tone. It is easy to read but leaves the reader satisfied intellectually. I learned a great deal from this book, even though I previously considered myself quite knowledgeable on the subject of science-versus-religion. This book is a fascinating and enjoyable course in rationalism, science, logic, good humor, and clear thinking."

Now who's using ad hominem and non sequitur arguments here?

[Quoted from Mr Tooley: Mr Mills then reverts back to the argument that "We know the bible is true ....."(75-76) The problem with this reasoning is clear. The author's ignorance and inability to comprehend a certain subject is all that he needs to validate it.]

Me: How on earth did you come to a conclusion that he's unfamiliar with the subject? He comprehends it enough to conclude, after delving into the 'intricacies of the bible', that it has no basis for logic or science. Invalidation of the scriptures didn't come from failure to understand, it comes from critical reasoning, which you should use as well.

[Quote from Mr. Tooley: "There is 1-1 correlation between birth and death from cancer. NOT!"]

Me: What's so surprising about David Mills original statement which you quoted? First of all, Mills says 'dying' not 'dead', so he didn't make a 1-1 correlation there. If bible freaks and writers like to use metaphors, why can't freethinkers do so as well?

[Quote from Mr. Tooley: Actually the bible is quite clear we are all BORN sinners, what God offers is salvation from your sin condition. Mr. Mills says he was a Christian then he should know this basic point.]

Me: I really think that YOU are the one who has little knowledge about Christianity. We are not BORN sinners! What sin would you have committed between the time you're concepted until your first breath out of your mother's womb? Christianity is based on the fact that the so called 'free-will' which God provides in the making of humans make us all have the tendency to err in his sight. No matter how paraodoxical an omniscient god granting free-will could be, you miss the point that we are not BORN sinners, "God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." (Genesis 1:31) Here's 'biblical proof' that sin isn't something we are born with. And yeah, thanks to your god for salvation so that we NEED his salvation. Where's the love in that? It's like giving bad poison or ailments to people which unless they beg for mercy, forgiveness and believes in the 'loving' doctor, they won't be given 'salvation' or an antidote.

[Quote from Mr. Tooley: Again the vast majority of Christians will tell you that most people will NOT believe the bible. Again Mr. Mills has a very weak understanding of what is in the bible.]

Me: I just don't see where your logic leads. You say that Christians tell people that most people won't believe in the bible and your conclusion is that Mr. Mills is therefore not knowledgeable of the Bible??? First, freethinkers who don't believe in the bible are considered the minority in the United States as well as many English-speaking and European countries. We have missioniaries knocking on people's doors or envangelizing in the streets! Do you see atheists do that? NO!!! And you say that most people don't believe in the bible?! Anyway, this statement of yours is also totally irrelevant to whether David Mills has a weak understanding of the bible or not. This is an obvious non sequitur.

[Quote from Mr. Tooley: "Were it not for relgious persecution .... be unknown (65-66) Can anybody, atheist or theist acutally believe this statement[?]]

Me: Mills didn't say that that statement is something to be believed in or that it's factual, see his use of the words 'might' and 'may'. It's just to bring out the point that if Christianity hadn't obstructed scientific development for 1500 years, recent scientific discoveries might not have came as late as it is. Learn some basic vocabulary!

[Quote from Mr. Tooley: Christianity is synonymous with freedom and freedom of thought.]

Me: (Rolls eyes)Oh yeah? Thanks for the inquisitions, the interruption of science during the Dark Ages, the hell threats, the missionaries who tries to usher me out of bed on Sunday mornings, so much for the 'freedom' we freethinkers get. Or is freedom only exclusive to Jesus-believing bigots? And oh yeah, did I say pro-choice, homosexuals and masturbators go to hell too? We do live in a free world, baby!

[Quote from Mr. Tooley: When contrasted to Atheism that is bound by a rigid set of interpretive rules Christianities{sic} belief system is highly positive and desirable.]

Me: Puh-leeze!!! You don't even understand what Atheism is to debunk it. First, atheism is derived from the prefix 'a-' meaning without or lack of, theism is the belief in a god or gods. Atheism therefore is a lack of a belief in god(s). When there's lack of belief, there can be no 'rigid set of interpretive rules'. The only people who might (I'm not saying that they will) give out such intolerant dogma are fundies, christians and anti-christians who think their religious beliefs are better than everybody elses'

[Quote from Mr. Tooley: Book burning, as an example, is a specialty done by the atheistic totalitarian sates {sic}]

Me: Proof please? And perhaps you forgot the human burning, human sacrifices, and the holy wars resulting in burnings of entire civilizations from your so-called loving god? Ouch, the books must have hurt more than humans!

Your rants against Mill's analogy on hell (page 206) are just mere outrage, there's no 'error some of the more obtuse individuals' could have missed. Read the bible please!

[Quote from Mr. Tooley: ..your physical body is of no consequence, it is your soul that the bible deals with. Your soul is non-corporal; therefore it is not affected by gravity. Since gravity does not affect it, neither does time. Hello, this is basic physics; your soul is outside of time.]

Me: Can you tell me from which physics textbook or source you read that deals with the physical properties of a soul, please? And also fill me in on how you know the soul exists!

My comments on the book: David Mills did a great job in introducing Atheism in a contemporary and scientific perspective. George H. Smith's "Atheism: the Case Against God", is kinda out-dated and something like this is a great update! Also, many books on atheism out there are primarily philosophical, this one tries to take the subject from a scientific stance. I love the fact that even when I'm no scientist and hated physics, Mills explained many scientific concepts in a clear-cut manner. In fact, what he wrote intrigues me so much I'm actually delving into more science books than I could ever imagine. He's also very good with responding to e-mails and I suggest that you write to him. I am writing this as I'm finishing the book, I was compelled to defend Mr. Mills from such ad hominem attacks from Mr. Steve Tooley.

Minor Flaws in this book (why I would take a star out):
- book is too short, so much more can be said on such a huge topic
- many scientific facts should be elaborated on, and he should tell us what sources he used
- the first chapter was kinda a space-taker, those quotes might be nice as an appendix, but not as an entire chapter. Afterall, they're not the author's original work!
- outdated bibliography and suggested reading list, the newest book in there is his own dated year 2000.

Suggestions to others after reading the book: You can read "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells to see that many of the points by Mr. Mills are debatable, but again there are websites everywhere that debunks the arguments brought forth in that book.

Other books that I think Mr. Mills and myself would like to read after this one (in the order of publication):

1. Unintelligent Design - Mark Merakh (2003): I see this as an updated version of Richard Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" it also debunks the biggies of creation science.
2. Why Intelligent Design Fails - Matt Young, Taner Denis (2004): More arguments against a created universe and the creationists big-three
3. The Case for a Creator - Lee Strobel(2004): We should always look at both sides of the argument, this is probably the most recent book that defends creationists, so I'm definitely going to check it out (NB. The additional update chaper at the end of "Atheist Universe" debunks the premise of the book already, but I want to have a better overwiew of the many other claims proponents of Intelliget Design make to defend the very messed-up doctrines of the Bible)
4. Evolution vs. Creationism - Eugenie C. Scott (2005): Again, looks at both sides of the argument in a non-subjective way, it doesn't come to any conclusions which side is better or more correct but definitely a good source of understanding the debate.
5. The Evolution-Creation Struggle - Michael Ruse (2005): This author has spend most of his life trying to debate the issue himself and comes to some very unique conclusions!

This is THE best book on atheism out there! It has been a powerful and liberating way to help me in letting go of all the religious burden I've been carrying on my shoulders. It's incredible, how much "holy hypnosis" we experience in our lifetime. That sort of C.R.A.P was holding me back in having a free and fulfilling life. Religion and cristianity for that matter, should be a choice not a mandatory brainwash. There is not an atom of evidence to prove beyond the resonable doubt that god exists, is there???

David Mills provides a very straightforward and simple explanation and defense (though I hate to call it that) of atheism. His prose is not weighed down with heady philosophical concepts, but speaks to the common man and makes very clear points. Other authors have written much longer books on the subject, but none I've found convey the important concepts so clearly and forcefully. I would strongly recommend this book to anyone even remotely interested in the subject, or in simply expanding their mind. Mr. Mills provides a lot to think about.

It should go without saying that this book is a must for non-believers who love to bait religious opponents with questions about their faith. This book tells us why a real God would be too benevolent and too kind to use billions of years of untold cruelty and wastefulness as his method of creation. He is too intelligent to plan it that way, and he is powerful enough to accomplish it in a better way. Creationists face the problem of why a loving God chose to use five billion years of chance variations, natural selection, geologic upheavals, storm, disease, extinctions, struggle, suffering and death as a prelude to His creation of man, which He decided to place right at the very tail-end of geologic time (You know, because man is important). This is one reason scientists are looking so hard for life on Mars. Right now all we have is one example of life: us. If all you have is one example of something like this, you have no way of knowing how common, how rare, or how unique it is through the universe. But if science is able to show that life had arisen independently on two different worlds, just within this one solar system, the idea of it being common throughout the universe is an easy one to accept, and the idea of a God is a little easier to let go.

As for myself, it was at time of my 13th birthday when I lost faith. I was completing my general education informally through reading. (Luckily because of my young age, much more atheistic writing was available to me than to most of the authors whose books I have bought) It was at this time that I reluctantly decided that I could no longer believe in Christianity. Books gave me the tools to reject my faith. Buy this book.

This book has some excellent qualities, but also some fatal flaws.

Mills presents clear, detailed explanations of the scientific consensus behind such things as the origins of the universe, and points out how common fundamentalist attacks on those theories typically misrepresent them, then argue against the false straw men.

If Mills had been satisfied with this, I'd have given the book five stars. Unfortunately, he seems to have an axe to grind. He repeatedly lumps all Christianity in with the Biblical literalists, and calls them hypocrites and worse when their theories disagree with the literal Bible. This is as unfair on his part as the fundamentalist attacks on science that he spends the other half of the book dismantling so well.

Still, if you discount that part, there's a lot of good information in this book.

This book was a delightful suprise. In Atheist Universe, David Mills makes clear, cogent arguments refuting Christianity on a variety of topics. Subjects include arguments from evil to the threat of internet pornography.

I loved David's writing style. It's easy to read, and the science presented in this book does the average person justice. David has a unique gift of communication; the writing is simple and to the point without being boring, and at the same time throughly adequate.

This book is for the Christian and battle-hardened atheist. This is THE best book I've read about atheism, even better than than Michael Martin's The Case Against God.

-Chris Campbell

Rosville, California

Hey people will believe whatever they want to believe, but think about this.... if all of you read this book from a young age over and over... nothing in the world would make you believe in god, it goes both ways.. or better yet, dont believe in a book at all, stand on your own two feet, appreciate the creative nature of literature... its a good book, gets you thinking if you havent thought about certain things it mentions. ;) enjoy!

Everytime I picked this book up I was sucked in. The explainations and reasonings were clear and easy to understand. Another thing I enjoyed was the fact that he tells us why he became an atheist himself. The biblical contradictions were great, too. If you're atheist, agnostic or even religious you need to check this book out.

It's actually extremely amazing that a book like this would be written in the 21 st century. The scientific credibility of the Bible and religious interpretations of the natural world have been completely discredited since the middle of the 19th century and well before that for many. It hardly seems necessary to rehash and debunk Christian beliefs concerning the age of the universe, planetary motion, evolution, the evidence of miracles, intelligent design, etc. For those who need these arguments to prop up newly found doubt, here they are.

The book consists of chapters that either overlap or have a hit or miss quality. In the midst of scientific arguments against supernatural creation are chapters on Internet porn and a disquisition on the religion of the founders. Perhaps the most interesting chapter is an interview of the author, which seems staged, where he answers more general questions about atheism, such as, the existence of morality without religion.

Perhaps it is unfair to judge a book by what it is not. But far more interesting and definitely far more complex would be a discussion of the social ramifications of religion versus atheism. Do society and individuals actually thrive better under religion or a rationalist or atheistic perspective? How is it that a benevolent God has permitted his followers to literally butcher millions of others in his name. Maybe hated secular humanists have a better idea after all.

It is doubtful that the book will have any impact on believers, who either ignore scientific evidence that repudiates Biblical creation or have developed ways of rationalizing the Bible.

I've been looking for a great book about atheism, and there were a few other's that I was looking at. But then I found this one, and I am glad I found it. It turns, out that David Mills and I have quite a few things in common. Both rejected religion about the same age and life has been about the same. Me, just like David, have studied the Bible a lot. I've also explored other religions in my youth.

Even though I have had my own thoughts about the Bible and religion, and the holes that were in the Bible. This book has even opened my eyes more, and made me realize more points against the Bible. It is a great read, and a easy read. I couldn't seem to put the book down, once I got reading it. One of my favorite parts is the "God of gaps" chapter. It is 100% true on how the creationist make it out that God is responsible for everything that we can't explain, then once science explains why something happens, we no longer need God for it.

Overall this book get's 5 stars. I would recommend it to anybody looking at becoming a atheist.

At the beginning of the book Mr. Mills says he will try to write in the clearest, most easy to understand style possible. He is successful in that and this is one of the reasons why this might very well be the best book advocating atheism. There are some very good books about this subject but they tend to be confusing, with a dry, hard-to-read style. And some of the books which defend atheist position tend to be arrogant, reflecting an air of superiority over the people of faith, an air of "I am smart and right, you are wrong and stupid". In Atheist Universe, however, Mr. Mills' style reflect a warm, likeable character and he explains his ideas without being disrespectful to the opposition.

There is another, very important reason that this book is different however. It always resorts to science for guidance. On a certain level, Mr. Mills takes some beliefs in Christianity (some of which are common to Judaism and Islam as well) and examines them from a scientific point of view. Creation of the universe in 6 days versus the scientific evidence for billions of years, creation of the Earth only about 6000 years ago according to the Bible versus numerous scientific evidence for much longer, creation of the first human from dirt just in one step versus very long gradual process of natural selection according to science are some of the examples. Reading these parts of the book makes one conclude, at the very least, that science is completely irreconcilable with established theistic religions.

On another level the book takes a more abstract definition of God, not necessarily the god of scriptures, and examines questions such as creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). Mr. Mills' way of tackling with such issues is again resorting to science. He explains the big-bang theory, the law of conversation of mass-energy, and shows that the idea of creation out of nothing is impossible, or inconsistent with science.

Finally he takes the issue of ethics and develops his view that people don't have to be religious to be moral. He shows that religion itself caused the most unethical, immoral conduct of human behavior in history (inquisition, which burnings, torture chambers, Crusades etc.) and he uses modern statistics which show that European countries have a lower percentage of people who believe in God, but they give more to charity, help more for humanistic purposes and have a lower crime rate. Furthermore, he shows statistics that confirm that within the United States, the more "religious" states have a higher crime rate.

Atheist Universe is unique in its use of science to develop and defend its arguments to such a degree of effectiveness. There is no inconsistency in its arguments, no logical fallacy. It is an important book, a book that should be read by any thinking person, regardless of their religious beliefs. Even faithful people should read this book, so they can think through the arguments presented here and perhaps reach their own synthesis.

The following review of Atheist Universe was written by R. Leland Waldrip and posted on the website of the Washington Area Secular Humanists:

The book lives up to Mills' promise in the introduction to challenge conventional wisdom and use extreme conciseness and clarity for his message. He describes his writing style as slow and deliberate, taking years to complete the book. He quotes Thomas Jefferson, who, in a letter to John Adams, wrote "I apologize to you for the lengthiness of this letter; but I had no time for shortening it."

With this book David Mills has delivered a coup d'etat to any thought of reconciling religion and science. Post-modernist apologies and attempts to bridge the gap between religion and science he gives no quarter. He very carefully and methodically attacks every religious argument outside the realm of human invention for the existence of a god. His favorite target is the irrationality of Christian belief and the Bible's contention of a young earth, Noah's flood, Genesis genealogies, etc. One rather interesting point he made in an almost casual manner was an observation that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke of the New Testament describe (contradictory) detailed male lineages of Jesus back to King David, and thereby create a trap for the writers of those books: the virgin birth would preclude any blood relationship through Joseph, so how could there be a lineage between Jesus and David? In debunking the prophesy of the Bible, Mills describes an absence of accuracy, noting that as far as accuracy is concerned, the Bible is a non-prophet organization.

He clarifies a number of scientific terms abused by religionists. For example, Physical Laws he defines as human descriptions of observed phenomena, rather than universal truths, and therefore subject to revision as new observations warrant. He tackles head-on the idea that the universe was created from nothing into something at the Big Bang. Rather, he offers proof through the Laws of Thermodynamics (conservation of mass/energy) that the universe was always here in one form or another. This argument had a particular resonance with me, as I have long had problems with the something from nothing idea of a single Big Bang jump-starting the universe.

Mills says he wrote this book for the forty percent of Americans "... open-minded readers who are not afraid to learn - in fact who are eager and fascinated to learn - about the many conflicts and controversies between science and the Christian Bible." My atheist and freethought friends will highly appreciate his hard-hitting candor and rock-solid enthusiasm for the scientific method, and will put this book at the very top of their arsenal of argument material for combat with religionists. Many of my theist friends who accidentally are exposed to it will probably have major heartburn and relegate it to the trash bin, if they dont outright burn it. But perhaps a few of them will be swayed by Mills flawless logic and lucidity of expression. I will cherish this book and keep it with my major reference works.

David Mills' book is the best book that I have read on atheism. Although Mr.Mills professes to be a devout atheist, he has researched thoroughly the subject of religion in general and the Bible in particular. His knowledge of the Bible transcends that of most devout Christians. His examples and analogies are clear and precise, and one doesn't need a PHd in philosophy or a dictionary to appreciate and understand his writing. I believe that if the Pope read this book with an open mind, he would have some serious doubts about his faith. But then, he, like most of the rest of us, have been brainwashed from childhood to believe this nonsense about religion. And without serious ponderance, brainwashing is a difficult thing to overcome.

If you are searching for some truth that will never be found in any bible, about gods,religions,doctrines,dogmas & a clear explanation of what creationists lie to themselves about, buy this book & you will welcome the opinions & facts that have eluded many blind & indoctrinated followers of gods who were invented by men from the past.

I purchased this book to be my first on atheism, expecting to put it down at the end and have a solid argument for atheism.

I would say this book accomplished that goal well. Mills writes in a very easy to read style--one that is not so wordy it will leave you bored if you have ADD tendencies like me.

Anyways, I feel I now have a solid leg to stand on with which to support my beliefs. You certainly won't be able to defeat the hardcore religious folks, but hey, you minus well argue with a wall.

Buy this if you're a newbie atheist!

[ Originally posted on the store.co.uk, Feb.16, 2005 ]

I can't recommend this book enough. Atheist Universe is a great read, a must read for every evolutionary biologist and for every religious person. Facts that religious people need to know are within the pages of this book. Don't be blind and shut yourself away from the facts. Don't let someone else tell you what to believe. Don't let someone indoctrinate you. Search out the facts for yourself. See it with your own eyes. This book helps to fill you in on some of the gaps, the facts of life and evolution, that religion fails to tell you about. The book sheds light on the continuous lies that religion spills out all of the time. Charles Darwin would have enjoyed this book immensely. I did. Written in a clear and concise manner -- not hard to follow at all -- and it's funny as well. Again, I highly recommend it. Oh yes, David Mills sounds like a top bloke too. Go on, open your mind!

Author David Mills writes with calm clarity that is rich with insight and understanding of evolutionary science. He pulls off the coating of misrepresented information and tells the truth with details. His prose style is easy and fluid. The reader is not overwhelmed with verbose scientific technical language. Most important, he does not apologize for or excuse the defenders of creationism for their sidewinding tactics. This is a refreshing read.

Is it important to find out why you think the way you do? David Mills gives the reader evidence with simple logic in his book "Atheist Universe" If your looking for a soft approach to the claims of religion you won't find it here. Question like how did the universe appear, what is the meaning of life, politics controling you with religion. You are given evidence to scientific questions. This book will help you to better understand through evidence and objective facts.
Chet Z. Fort Lauderdale

This book is a must read for anyone that is interested in really learning about Atheism. Most of the arguments I try to make are made perfectly by David mills. Too often we are cosidered immoral because we do not follow their beliefs and traditions. I was upset that I found myself almost hiding this book from my own family. If they would only open their minds enough to read a book like this, they would see that being an atheist does not mean you are evil in anyway. For anybody that is not afraid of new ideas and ways of thinking, read this book.

Atheist Universe provides a fairly good introduction to atheism, but I would recommend a book that provides more depth such as Natural Atheism by David Eller. I have now read both books, and I felt that if I didn't have the background from reading Natural Atheism, I would have had a lot of questions after reading Atheist Universe. Also, I feel that Mills jumps around quite a bit in Atheist Universe and some chapters seem to have very little to do with his thesis (for instance the chapter on internet pornography). To be fair, Mills' book is much easier to read but again I feel it skimps on the content.

I ordered David Mill's 'Atheist Universe' with expectations that it would be written with scientific knowledge that I haven't already been exposed to. Knowledge that furthers my already strong conviction that, indeed, religion has proved itself to be one of the strongest 'memes' pervading all societies. I had an interest in seeing how this former born-again individual who had been raised in a Christian home, but now a professing atheist for the past 30 years, would address these different scientific questions and he didn't dissappoint me. There were some well written relevant chapters.

My negatives concerning this book and I'll state them are.

His introduction began with a 'ranting and railing' diatribe against all conservatives as though people who are currently talk show hosts and Fox News are out there doing nothing but crusading to crush anyone desiring to be a free thinker. Although I don't agree with many 'ultra right' conservative issues neither do I adhere to many 'ultra left' ideologies either. I'm able to sort this all out for myself without being subjected to David Mills strong political beliefs which did nothing for the book IMO. I found this to be a turn off and almost put the book down. However, he redeemed himself in the chapters that followed and reafirmed many of my own findings as to why I've become an atheist.

Then I reached Chapter 9 where he seemed to crusade for the right of pornography purveyers on the Internet to remain uncensored (except for those who use children in pornography). I would think everyone would agree with the latter.

But he went on to pretty much assert that it's every man's right to view pornography and even moreso the right of every boy having reached puberty to do so as well. His contention in Chapter 9 was that pornography on the Internet is really nobody's business, expecially those rascally conservatives who have the gall to introduce ways and means to block it from being seen by children. His contention was and I quote him here that there is "no problem and we should not strive to 'child proof' the Internet". He asserted as though it's a scientifically proven idea "that it's fact that children have no libido" and further stated that, "unless spoon-fed these fantasies by an incompetent psychotherapist or social worker, sexual imagery and desire are totally absent within children until puberty begins.

I would like to differ greatly with David Mills expertise in this area. I am a female and I was sexually abused as a child from the age of 5. I can state as fact that my libido was awakened by these experiences and remained awakened through my childhood where I did act out many fantasies. So as far as I am concerned, David Mills,
in Chapter 9, demonstrates that doesn't know what he is talking about and should have left this out of his book completely as it has no relevency whatsoever to the rest of his book.

Furthermore, because he believes that viewing pornography is the inherit right of every boy reaching puberty as well as every man as if it is an innocent 'victimless' activity which doesn't hurt anyone. Atheists should be about the consideration of others because it's the right thing to do and not because some God said so. It is in many ways totally inconsiderate and in some cases harmful.

I contend that many wives are deeply hurt when their husbands sit in front of the Internet mastubating and fantasizing instead of working on their real life relationships and I also wonder how David Mills would feel about his own daughter growing up to be one of these 'porn actresses' being ogled by teen boys and men alike while they masturbate themselves?

Could the contents of Chapter 9 lend themselves to why people might perceive atheists as 'amoral'?

Anyone who has given a considerable amount of thought to religion and, by contrast, atheism, has considered just about everything in this book, but it's presented in such a fashion as to leave those who are on the fence in the matter without doubt as to which way of thinking is rational, and why.

Great book not just for the devout atheist, but especially for those who could go either way.

Mills has written a terrific and nearly comprehensive overview of why atheism makes more sense than religiosity. He builds his case -- argument by argument, point by point -- in a casual, conversant style of writing that anyone should be able to follow and appreciate. Highly recommended.

This is my FAVORITE book. I love the way Mills describes his views and brings up subjects. It's easy to understand and very comprehensive, going over so many great subjects. I couldn't put this book down!!!! This is my choice for an atheist book. Just perfect all around.

I've read books on this subject before but I can tell you that this is by far the best, easiest to understand book that disputes the existence of a supreme being. If you've ever wanted to know what's on the other side of religion, had any doubts about your faith or ever wondered "where did it all come from and for what purpose?".......you should definitely start with this book before you read any other. You'll come out more knowledgeable than 99% of all fundamentalist of any religion out there.

I am a retired teacher and an atheist. Atheist Universe is the best book I have ever read on atheism. Mills' coverage of scientific issues is first rate- especially his explanation of what existed before the Big Bang. His description of Christian dogma is accurate and fair. He carefully demonstrates why Christianity and science are not compatible. Mills uses clever analogies to clarify difficult ideas and has a sly sense of humor that surfaces at appropriate times. I can't recommend Atheist Universe too highly!

This is a concise and detailed examination of the problems inherent in the "ID" philosophy. David Mills writes with a clear voice, illuminating and detailing how the argument over ID is really a clear and present danger - a danger we ignore at our peril.

How does one insist that "God" created the universe! My first question is what God? The Christian God or the Muslim God? The Greek Gods or the Roman Gods. Who is right? If there were one "true" God it would certainly make him/herself known so this matter could be cleared up! Where is he/she? Perhaps allowing yourself to be educated might be a start in opening that closed, ignorant, war inducing mind. Mill's Atheist Universe is an informative book that could be the key to that success. He uses scientific facts to justify many points. Those of the "religious" type should set aside your "feeling" based "facts" and open your eyes to the truly irrefutable elements of this world, universe, and beyond. Atheist Universe successfully presents the truth and should be a must read for all people who strive to be intelligent and make the world a better place.

I found David's book to explain and debunk several theistic theories in a very efficient manner. The book covers a wide array of topics from evolution to internet porn. I found every chapter to be full of relevant information and easy to read analogies.

I gave the book 4/5 stars as opposed to 5/5 stars for one reason and one reason alone: I wanted to keep reading!!! The book is so efficient, that you can cover many topics in a very short period of time, but because David Mills is such a good writer, you just want him to talk more and more and more.

PS: My name James, not Mary, but I think that's what the store may show... Mary is my mom.

This is a fantastic book the easily defines what it is to be an Atheist and the lifestyle that goes along with that. Many people believe Atheists to be unhappy and immoral people, but I'm glad to see a book that showcases the reason many people have announced themselves as Atheists. It lays out the scientific evidence in a very easy and understandable way, and still brings in a personal side from the author. At times funny, yet never boring, I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in knowing more about religion and science. A great read!

This is my absolute favorite book on religious issues. That is saying a lot considering I have read many! It is very pleasant to read and is full of wonderful argument and support for atheism. A must have!

David Mills has written a comprehensive and easy-to-read book that debunks the propaganda and BS spewed by religious cretins and their fairytale books, like the Bible. I've read many books on atheism and related subjects and that is one of the best, hands down. Not only is David Mills intelligent and knowledgeable, but he is also a very warm and sincere person. I've corresponded with him in emails and he has been down-to-earth and hospitable. I recommend this book to everyone, because it is an important read.

Very well written book that rates up there with "The God Delusion", "End of Faith", and "God is not Great". I especially love the chapter on the hysteria over Internet porn and the chapter that thrashes the "Intelligent Design" bozos. Bravo! Nice work, Mr. Mills!

I picked this book up as a christian who is interested in maintaining a well-rounded viewpoint. I was hoping to encounter some interesting arguments or data to challenge specific points of the christian religion, but I can't say I really did. Ultimately, I feel like the author spent a lot of time dismissing Intelligent Design, which I can understand since it isn't hard science, but also ended up doing a lot of handwaving over his points of contention in general. Maybe I expected too much, I don't know. I think it's a worthwhile read since it's one of the highest ranking books on the subject, but that doesn't speak too well of the genre in general it seems. I appreciate the author's civil style and friendly tone, but ultimately I just wasn't persuaded to even reconsider anything, and that may make his attempt a failure.

Very concise, to the point, logical, with adequate evidence to back up the claims. I highly recommend it. And I also challenge the religious people to disprove the book, but only with credible evidence and not with emotions, defensiveness, and anger.

This is the book I've been looking for! Anyone who needs answers for the zany arguments made by superstitious zealots should absolutely read this book. Many thought-provoking concepts and ideas are presented in a clear and concise manner. Buy this book, you won't be disappointed.

Interview with an atheist shows that a devout atheist is not a demon, not a nut and not a threat to society...just an every day person that is not convinced there is a god/s.

There are more of us out here than the Fundies want to admit. For the most part we just keep quiet and go about our lives not wanting to draw attention to ourselves. The only thing worse to a fundie than "fags" or people that are pro choice is an all out non believer. Why would we want to bring that sort of scorn on ourselves by stating our views on religion? It's more politically correct to state you are agnostic. It implies you believe but aren't devout to a particular sect of Christianity. We live in a society where the PRESIDENT says if you are not a believer you are welcome to leave! This is a Country founded on Christianity. A lie that is perpetuated in countless e-mails and word of mouth pounded from the pulpit. But how many Christians have taken the time and effort to investigate the roots of their own beliefs? How many know about the treaty of Tripoli, or what the founding fathers really believed? Indeed, how many have READ THEIR BIBLE? Most Atheists, know more about the bible than self proclaimed Christians, for how can you truly not believe unless you know what it is you don't believe in? David Mills shows why there absolutely ARE atheists in fox/fighting holes. As a Marine I can attest first hand that Atheists honorably serve their country and are just as patriotic as the believers in this country. So why should we be asked to leave? Because we BELIEVE in Science? We understand what evolution really is? Because there is nothing that can not be explained by natural means and does not require stepping into the irrational supernatural, which only complicates EVERY theory? This book is absolutely the best and most simple to understand FACTS out there to show how the world really came to be and points out what faith it really takes to be a believer. I Personally challenge all believers to read this book and attempt to understand what an atheist really is. In fact I DARE you. Set down the bible and read something that will challenge your faith. This book systematically destroys the straw man B.S. that the average Christian will parrot from Christian leaders that don't have the intelligence to turn the same skepticism on their own religion as they do for other's religions. Get off your asses and do some research on your own instead of slouching in the pews and listening to a lunatic rant. Find out if Jesus really existed in the flesh. Outside Scripture there is no first hand evidence he was real. All accounts are written long after he would have died. And (snicker).."ROSE FROM THE DEAD" The Romans documented everything and there is no record of a man that did such "miracles". Unless you actually believe that 6,000 years ago the world was new and people lived to be 960 years old. Or that water to wine is a miracle for an omnipotent being that could have cured cancer or done something worth while instead of a parlor trick, but you probably believe that evangelist on TV really healed that terd in the wheel chair right?

If you can believe that you can believe anything. If you are a THINKING person this book is for you. If you are a dim witted moron that likes to have life lessons spoon fed to him from another half wit that thinks Noah's ark was real and we came from Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago than don't bother. You wouldn't have the I.Q. to comprehend science and reality anyway. What are your chances of really getting into heaven? Why would a loving god create hell for his children? What is a soul? Why is intelligent design a farce that once again got laughed out of courtrooms in a country that is over 80% Christian?

What is Occam's Razor? Why is Irreducible complexity a total false analogy?

Why is there NO controversy in the science community regarding evolution and why have no "transitional" fossils ever been found? (They are ALL transitional fossils by the way) Why does the fossil record agree with all other sciences and show the direct opposite of a New Universe?

And No you didn't come from MODERN apes. Why evolution is not JUST a theory. It's a scientific fact as real as Gravitational THEORY, and you don't have to BELIEVE in gravity for it to be real. If you are too lazy to research on your own, the real answers to these questions then READ THIS BOOK. Get spoon feed some facts instead of supernatural non sense. Put you mind at ease, you will NEVER go to hell. It doesn't exist and this book proves it....or leaves you with a god so terrible he makes Hitler and Stalin look like choir boys, unworthy of respect let alone worship. Why your god is as false as Thor, Ra, and Hercules. Why we atheists only believe in ONE less god than you do. What are you waiting for? Buy the book! Or if you are too stupid to read have some one read it to you.

David is much more eloquent than I, but he speaks the truth. This book should be mandatory reading in public schools. Children should be forced to read this information instead of the brain washing that Christians give in Sunday school, forcing an innocent Child BORN an atheist to pray "If I DIE before I wake, I pray the lord my soul to take"

That is flat out child abuse. Quick read this book before another generation falls to the insanity that you god has to offer your child. At least let them make an INFORMED decision instead of punishing them for not going to church every week. Educate them so they can spot fraudulent science and misinformation such as answersingenesis and the hacks that write that farcical B.S. And if you can't spot it either, educate yourself!

God was created in man's image, for if god was real he most certainly would not be the god of the Christian bible OR the quran. OR their spin offs.

I think this book is not only for atheists. It's even great for spiritual seekers (what I consider myself to be) who dislike dogmatic religious views.

Once you start reading it, it's hard to put it down. Very highly recommended.

In a way, this review is superfluous because the other reviewers have really said it all. I merely want to add my voice to those who have written glowingly about this book. Mr. Mills has a fine talent as a clear and convincing author. I especially liked the scientific data included in the book in a manner that is very accessable to the layperson.

Simply put, David's book gets to the meat and potatoes of the issues that seperate "believers" from "free thinkers." Like Mike Shermer, Carl Sagan, and other modern writers, David Mills infures no shortage of wit and wisdom which, if one is not carefull, will lead to learning. Like The Demon Haunted World, Why People Believe Weird Things, and Dinosaur in a Haystack, this is truly a A must own book!

W. S. Davis,
Author of HERETICS

Mills vigorously and intelligently tackles the problems with creationism. He takes the reader on a journey through all of the fundamental arguing points of the debate and scores big for reason every time.

If you want to be able to back up your atheist views better or just want an good overview of the core issues, this is THE book to start with.

An easier read than Smith's "Atheism, the case against God," yet still a thorough evisceration of fundamentalism and "Intelligent Design." The chapter "Interview with an Atheist" nicely summarizes the atheist viewpoint without pedantry, and the details are forthcoming in the later chapters. Nicely written with a personal touch.

Excellent book for the enlightened thinking person.
Or, possibly an enlightening book for a religious person.
The chapter on Miracles alone makes the book a worthwhile purchase.
Jim Flannigan, Livonia, Michigan Atheist

Funny! Rowley keeps makings statements as if the author is grouping all Christians together using the less favorable ones as his messuring rod, but book is titled "Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism". Key word here is "Fundamentalism"! Thus if you are not a "Fundamentalist" Christian, then you are not represented therein!

The problem then is that religious people tend to read most books this way, and that includes their so-called "Holly" bible. Note: I didn't say all! :) I call it the "Ignoring Method", and this is the weapon of choice by most religious people.

Being that the literal definition of belief is: "something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief." We can see that the foundation of belief starts with a "huntch", and is not founded on fact. Thus belief equals Ignorance, because you don't know and have no facts to back your convictions! This is how the "Ignore Method" was created.. First you ignore the obvious (making you "Ignor-ant"), and then you talk in circles like an idiot.

Most people quote this bible without even knowing its history, thus never knowing that the bible is a book made up of many little books. And what was choosen to be placed within was decided upon by a group of mortal men, and absolut power corrupts absolutly. And this corruption of text if the very foundation of this book, so why are we even debating such nonsense to begin with?

I am not an athiest or a Christian, but I do have common sense! Its simple English grammer here.. "Fundamentalism" Now.. can we all just get along? LOL :)

This book is amazing first of all. Second of all I don't like all these religious zealots bashing this book. Atheists are people too. We are not evil or spiteful or any of that crap. Stop writeing about something that you have no idea of.

Also, stop quoteing the Bible! I'm sick of it! The bible was writen by man first of all. And the committee that wrote the bible left some things out by the way. Stop getting into our business and grow up!!

No gods, no masters we all live in an Atheist universe.

Mal 2:3 KJV

This book was well worth the money. I have been looking for a simple concise book that would help me organize my argument when confronted by bible thumpers. This book met that requirement. It was enjoyable and easy to read.

I have been an atheist for about 6-7 years now (I'm 20) and I have been in countless religious debates throughout the years. I always felt that I could convey my beliefs thoroughly and intelligently. However, there were times when I couldn't quite find the right words for what I wanted to say. David Mills words everything perfectly! Besides that, he has answers to countless questions that I have yet to encounter (but may in the future). So, as the title for my review states, who needs a false God who provides nothing when you have David Mills who provides a wealth of knowledge?

This was a marvelous investment of time and money for me. David Mills' book is clear, to the point and convincing. Had I had any doubts about my nonbelief, this book would have erased all of them. I look forward to anything else he may write on the subject of atheism.

Betty Brogaard, author of DARE TO THINK FOR YOURSELF (A JOURNEY FROM FAITH TO REASON).

From the blurbs on the front, and the ringing endorsement of this work as “an admirable work” by none other than Richard Dawkins himself, I expected a solid, scientifically sound treatise on the best evidence for atheism. Sadly, this is far from what I found. The author suggests in the introduction that the book will be labeled an “outrage” by theists because of the devastating evidence presented against the existence of deity. The outrage, however, is the laughably bad science, innumerable logical fallacies (including some egregious ad hominem attacks), naive philosophy, and avoidance of the primary thesis.

Coming to this work ten years after its publication, one can expect some new scientific discoveries to shed new light on his topic. However, most of his scientific evidence had been countered at the time of publication; some of which the author presents himself in a different section of the book.

For example, the blurb on the cover asks, “If God is a myth, then how did the universe appear?” [SPOILER WARNING: I’ll be discussing his answer to this and other questions throughout the rest of this review.] Mr. Mills’ answer to this question is that matter has never “appeared”, but has existed eternally. Any other answer he says would violate the first law of thermodynamics. Because the total matter and/or energy in a closed system is always constant and cannot be created or destroyed, then obviously, the matter in our universe must have always existed.

According to Mills, the big bang theory holds that spacetime began rapidly expanding at the moment of the big bang, but that the matter and energy was pre-existing. However, this isn’t the entire truth. While the Cyclic theory does espouse this view, the conventional big bang theory says “Space, time and matter all sprang into existence 14 billion years ago…” [...].

While Mills seems to imply that this is at least a possibility, Stephen Hawking himself says about this theory; “Indeed, one might suppose that the universe had oscillated, though that still wouldn't solve the problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: one would expect that the universe would become more disordered each oscillation. It is therefore difficult to see how the universe could have been oscillating for an infinite time.” [...]
He takes a brief detour here to set up a rather blatant ad hominem attack, writing that, “creationists, on a more basic level, do not appear to grasp what modern science means by the term “physical law.” And then he continues to explain that these ignorant creationists “often claim that the laws of physics govern the behavior of the universe.”

What he’s actually done is a bit of equivocation. Every serious scholar, whether theist or atheist, knows that what we call physical “laws” are actually descriptions of what normally happens in nature on a regular basis. Yet, he presents the concept as if creationists believe we could just re-write the law of gravity so that objects in a vacuum fell at 4.5 m/s squared rather than 9.8 m/s squared, and suddenly, gravity would become less powerful! This characterization is absurd to the point of childishness.

Mills writes, “If mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, and if the universe is entirely composed of mass-energy, then the law of the conservation of mass-energy may be extrapolated to this startling conclusion: the universe, in one form or another, in one density or another, always existed.”

So lets assume, for the moment that this is true. Mr. Mills neglects to point out he problem with the *second* law of thermodynamics… that in a closed system, the amount of entropy always increases over time. In other words, the amount of usable energy in a closed system decreases over time. If Mills’ position is correct, then the universe would be like a 9 volt battery that has been discharging for an infinite amount of time, with no external charging mechanism. How then do we still have usable energy?

He further appeals to the work of Stephen Hawking (later popularized by Lawrence Krauss) that matter can appear out of “the nothingness of a perfect vacuum in empty space”.

This begs the question. Matter cannot appear out of a perfect vacuum in empty space if space itself does not exist! We are attempting to discover the origin of space, time, matter, and energy; all of which were either non-existent, or compressed into (as Mills writes) “an infinitely dense theoretical point called a singularity, consisting of no volume whatsoever.” Please note that this is a “theoretical” point. How all of the matter and energy in the universe could be compressed so tightly that it *literally takes up no room at all* has yet to be demonstrated.

To his credit, Mills does attempt answer at least a few objections, starting with Mortimer Adler’s question, “Why is there something, rather than nothing?”

His response is a rather glib, “From a scientific perspective, though, the question is: Why *shouldn’t* there be something, rather than nothing? What law of science claims that… nonexistence is the ‘natural’ condition of the universe?”

I’ll remind him that the theist could make the same observation. Why *shouldn’t* a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being exist? And to that question (which does, in fact, seem to be the central thesis of a work titled “Atheist Universe”, Mills gives no answer. He spends a lot of time attempting to counter the straw man arguments that he believes to be theistic (and in particular, Christian) positions, but little time defending his own thesis.

To point out one other philosophical flaw, Mills attempts to rebut Dr. William Lane Craig’s argument that one cannot traverse an actual infinite number of days. Amusingly, he resorts to Zeno’s paradox. He says that if Dr. Craig’s contention is correct, then one should not be able to walk across a room, because before one gets to the other side, they have to cross half of that difference. But before they can cross to the halfway point, they have to cross half of *that* difference. This sequence can be extended to infinity, so one must cross an actually infinite set in order to cross the room. Because we can obviously cross a room, then it must be possible to cross an actually infinite number of objects.

While calculus offers a rigorous refutation of this argument, it is sufficient, I think, to intuitively understand that in crossing the room, we are dividing a finite length into infinitely small parts. When traversing an infinite number of days, the parts are of finite length, which results in an infinitely long span of time. In other words, if we required Mr. Mills to begin walking for an infinite number of finite units (whether they be miles, meters, or microns), he could never traverse that distance. Similarly, the universe could not have traversed an infinite number of past finite units (days, minutes, seconds, etc.) in order to bring us to today.

To paraphrase Mills himself, I could continue pointing out every logical fallacy and straw argument that he makes, but by the time I finish, I’d find a lawyer knocking at my door suing me for copyright infringement. The number of quotations I’d have to use to illustrate the absurdity of his positions would go far beyond fair use. All in all, it’s a thoroughly juvenile work. Unfortunately, it is well-written enough to convince someone without knowledge of these issues that the author actually knows what he’s talking about. I can easily see the casual reader with atheistic proclivities reading this book and thoroughly enjoying every word as Mills “sticks it” to theists and Christians. However, in light of the various ad hominem attacks, bad science, and bad philosophy, I cannot recommend this book to anyone who is truly searching for answers to the questions raised on its cover.

I mean the guy is obviously right but he makes some odd arguements. He puts alot of words in the mouths of creationists and then argues based on his assumptions of their points. There is something insightful here and there but all in all it's just ok.

I guess a good book in so far as it systematically tackles the areas of dissonance between the confessing atheist and the confessing believer.

Maybe the question more simply is what is the interplay between reason, emotions and faith.

I do think that the fundamental difference between the atheist and believer is faith (not faith generally as both have faith: the atheist places his/her faith in what is seen and the believer in what is seen and in the unseen). So should i say faith in the unseen. Faith is very difficult and its easier to not have faith in the area of the unseen than it is to have persvering faith (until the weight of the reality of faith through the realisation of its partial fulfillment becomes more than the ease with which one can dispose of it). To extend faith into the unseen is to reverse a take of our existence which can only be reductionist in nature. Extending faith in the area of the unseen is like entering an arena of combat. It is only once faith is extended that it becomes subject to the full onslaught of all the varied arguments, opinions and scrutiny of all and sundry.

Expect to get the walk of faith wrong - you will always be faced with 2 options - lose it or persevere.

The faith i have defined here is a faith that you do not become an advocate of through reasoning. Nor through emotions. Its a faith which is afforded through belief. To put this more simply the truth is: Believe in order to understand; don't try and understand in order to believe.

The interplay of emotion, reason and fiath should outplay itself thus within the context of faith in the unseen: emotion or reason (depending on whether you or emotion or reason dominant) should be SUBJECT to faith. (Clearly I am not suggesting that if you are reason dominant you do not need to consider subject you emotions to faith - this will follow naturally by virtue of your nature).

I borrowed this book; returned it half-read. The author's ability to clearly explain the scientific "answer to Christian Fundamentalism" was, for me, overshadowed by his condescension and general snark. In addition, contrary to the sub-title, Mr Mills attempted to make the case against all religious/spiritual belief. His 'holier than thou' attitude was no less revolting coming from someone who believes in the absence of god; as much an article as faith as the opposite view.

This is an absorbing and highly readable account. It's a serious study (tho with humour), written in a clear, accessible style. Rather than a book in defence of atheism, however, this book is a staunch attack on evangelical fundamentalism. Almost all of Mill's arguments are against Christian fundamentalist beliefs rather than a pure reasoning of his own belief that there is no god. Further, it makes virtually no mention of any other religion than Christianity; and even here, it focuses purely on the evangelical stream of that faith. Thus its value is limited.

Mills' chapters on science are well argued, e.g. his study on the origins of the universe, the 'planetary clockwork' of our solar system, and his defence of evolution (two chapters). Mills also includes some good reading on the implausibility of souls suffering in an eternity of hellish agony, and on Christians' 'selective observation' of answered prayers. I would love all 'born-again' Christians to consider the points Mills makes in these pages.

I personally am a committed Christian, yet share Mill's annoyance at much of the naivety and shallow-thinking that so many evangelical believers hold to. Indeed, I could list many more such points that Mills doesn't mention! Christians can certainly be extremely naive and obnoxiously insistent that THEIR interpretations of the Bible are the only true interpretations, and that they therefore MUST be right. Such intolerant attitudes are indeed horribly off-putting, and if these had anything to do with turning Mills and others away from their evangelical faith, then the Church has much to be ashamed of. It's easy to see why many find evangelicalism so unattractive in many ways.

But please note that not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. I have a very deep and intimate faith in Jesus Christ, but I am NOT a fundamentalist (although I confess, that like Mills, I used to be). I do not believe the Bible is inerrant, and I certainly don't believe it is all to be taken literally. The Bible requires serious critical study to understand what parts were meant to be taken literally and what is meant to be figurative. It's not a matter of personal choice, but of careful academic study.

Thus, I, like many evangelicals I know, do NOT hold to 6-day creationism, nor that all non-believers will be sent to a life of eternal suffering (however, to insist that any form of 'hell' is a myth is presumptuous). But I do believe that Jesus Christ can give new life to all who are truly willing to die to self; I believe He guides and protects us, gives wonderful purpose to life, hears and answers prayers, and gives a most profound peace, joy and hope.

There are a considerable number of statements in Mill's book that I believe are incorrect or are gross generalisations which simply do not hold true for many Christians. He states that 'historically, the Church fought venomously against each new scientific advance' but fails to state that many of these advances were in fact made by Bible-believing Christians! Mills is quick to note various inhumanities committed by 'devout believers', e.g. the burning of witches in centuries past, but makes no specific mention of the MILLIONS slaughtered by committed atheists such as Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, or Kim Sung of North Korea (to name a few). Mills fails to mention that the most atheistic nation in the world (North Korea) is also that with perhaps the most pathetic record of human rights abuses - not 300 years ago, but TODAY.

The author also makes a number of contradictions; such as stating that most Christians live 'very unfulfilling lives' of miserable guilt (p56) - yet admitting that he had 'an exceptionally happy childhood' as 'a typical believer in the Baptist faith'! (p74) I also think that the entire chapter devoted to fundamentalists' views on the danger of internet porn hardly constitutes a solid evidence of atheism! (nor, for that matter, does his chapter on the Constitution of America!). Perhaps Mills was running out of arguments.

But a more serious criticism of the book is the author's failure to give positive reasons for the validity of atheism, rather than his constant attacks on fundamentalism. He completely fails to show what genuine meaning there is to life for an atheist. He simply refers to 'hobbies and interests' which keep people 'maximally happy' (p55)! He goes into no depth whatever on the meaninglessness of life generally or in particular. This is a terrible omission I know of no atheist who lives out what they believe. An atheist believes that a human is simply a (complex) bundle of chemicals with no real purpose. A lump of dog dirt, or a rat, falls into the same category. But what human lives as though he's not more important than a lump of dog foul or a rat. We each live as if our OWN life is very important (if you don't believe that, try pointing a 'live' pistol at someone's head and note their reaction). Atheists live a contradiction, but none are willing to admit it. Mind you, Nietsche at least ATTEMPTED to live out the reality of his atheism and the meaninglessness of his own existence, and I admire him for it. But what happened? - he went insane. He couldn't do it - it's impossible. Mills fails to discuss the soul-less implications of atheism. Ultimately, if Mills had spent far more time explaining the reasons and the consequences of his own atheistic beliefs, instead of simply rubishing evangelicals' views, then this book would have been far more worthy. As it is, however, it does make a thought-provoking read.

So many atheists believe that unless something is scientifically verifiable, then it should not be taken seriously. It's a well-worn point, but who can scientifically verify the reality of love? Yet, it's one of the most vital ingredient in a human's life. And it's the central tenet of the Christian faith (whether or not we all practise it as we should). God is love. He, too, is scientifically unverifiable, but as millions of people who have received His love unspeakable can testify, He, too, is very very real.

I have to be honest. I actually haven't read the book yet, so I can't give a review of it. But I do have a question, and I am going simply by the book's title, what it states here on the store and what it claims to answer within its pages.
Why is this book aimed only at Christian Fundamentalism if atheists are against all gods? Why doesn't it touch on Islamic Fundamentalism too and try to answer some things about Allah? Or Taosim? Or Buddhism? The reason I ask is because I am a Christian and I am trying to purge all of the things I have been taught about atheists and understand the true meaning and definition of atheism.
From what I can see here this author isn't doing a very good job at convincing me to go out and buy his book. He seems like he wants to just go out and bash Christianity and denounce it, for whatever reason. Well, I guess I've kind of committed a sin here by judging a book by its cover. Oops.
Maybe David Mills has some things in the works for the future? One can only suppose I guess.

The premise that Dogmatic Religions are the only religions that define God is absurd and therefore his claim to refute the existence of God is equally absurd. There are several non-Dogmatic religions that work towards the understanding of God and Reason through scientific reasoning on one pillar and archetypal symbolism in the mind's most abstract to bridge a gap to understanding that God resides Within. The oddity most people debate on the existence of God is not whether GOD is infinitely manifested, on all cosmic planes, but whether this reflection of God in one book is more accurate than another reflection of God in another book.

Reality check: both books are flawed inexorably because they draw from a lack of reason and experience and draw upon miracles pronounced solely on faith without validation.

GOD is wthin and upon the ladder within one must climb, without concern upon the way until one gets a grasp at the meaning of GOD and its paradoxical dilemma once experienced.

The mystics of antiquity with any sound reasoning hid all of their wisdom through metaphor, while entrenching the truth through misdirection. Life is a puzzle. Instead of asking for someone else to put the puzzle together, try getting off your duff and do it yourself. Afterall, no two puzzles are alike and yet all puzzles are a piece of the Universe, a piece of GOD.

Two disclaimers: I am an atheist, and I did _not_ read this book.

I just wanted to note the new subtitle for the second edition: "The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism". The disdainfully confrontational tone of the subtitle (which was NOT on the earlier edition) is a huge turnoff to me when considering this book. Apparently non-atheists are assumed to be unthinking? And the specific targeting of Christians (as opposed to religion in general -- the only true opposite of atheism) suggests an agenda that makes me far less likely to pick this up.

I'm interested in level headed discussion, not the ramblings of some dude with an axe to grind. And again, I'm not at all religious myself -- but unless such discussions are approached with respect, you don't deserve much of an audience.

From the other reviews, I might still give it a try; but I wonder just how many sales the subtitle cost the writer? Actually, knowing the confrontational divisiveness of today's societal landscape it probably gained him readers, and that's the sad part.

(Oh, and I wish the store allowed for non-starred commentary. Oh well....)

I must respectfully disagree with Jonathan K. Atkins. I did misspell Stephen Hawkings name and yes I have corrected that. Let me try and explain this further in a clear and precise manner so that Mr. Atkins understands:

We can safely assume that we exist, and exist in time. If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. We can observe, using scientific methods, that the universe is expanding. We see that the universe is expanding faster from the outer edges than in the center. All objects are moving away from each other, the farther, the faster - this phenomena appears the same no matter what vantage point we have within the universe. We know from laws of physics that matter cannot be created from nothing (ex-nihilo) or destroyed - only converted to energy. We can measure the amount of energy and matter in the observable universe, and the motion of the bodies within it. Another law of physics (second law of thermodynamics - entropy) says that the universe is slowly running down as matter is converted to energy inside of stars - going from order to disorder, from hot to cold. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be", as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded. We can calculate whether there is enough mass and energy for the universe to keep expanding forever or collapse. It appears that it will eventually collapse, but we also know that given the current mass and motion of the cosmos, everything we see probably began from a single point of infinite mass and energy - the "Big Bang." We can deduce from this evidence that the universe did not always exist. If we project time backwards, "rewinding the tape" of time backwards, imagining an ever-shrinking universe, until we come to a beginning point in time and space. This has been mathematically predicted, and observations by scientists have largely verified this prediction by measurement of the mass in the universe and the speed and motion of distant bodies. See Stephen Hawking's book A Brief History of Time. We can observe stars burning nuclear fuel (hydrogen) as they shine, and can calculate the rate that they use it up. If this process has been going on forever, how much fuel would be left? We know that the sun hasn't used even 2% of it's hydrogen since it came into existence. If stars were constantly being regenerated from nothing, we would be able to observe this. We therefore conclude that the universe had a beginning. A first cause must be capable of wielding infinite energy and matter, and must be capable of creating it from nothing, outside of itself. A necessary cause must exist and be eternal, because it wouldn't be necessary if it could be brought into or out of existence. This necessary cause cannot be caused (non-contingent) and cannot be limited by something else (all powerful and infinite). It must be singular (since it could not be caused by another, and must be a first cause). It can therefore rightfully be called God. We can examine the evidence that exists for design in the universe, and predict the qualities required of a Designer capable enough to conceive such a work in all its beauty and complexity. An excellent contemporary book by Michael Behe, provides a thorough and scientific demonstration of the necessity for design in the molecular level of biology - introducing a concept called "irreducible complexity". We can disprove other possible (non-theistic) explanations using both observation and logic:

The atheist maintains that matter and energy are "self existing" and were not created. This must mean that either matter has always existed, or does not exist at all. The second premise is nonsense, the first has been contradicted in every case that we know of by scientific observation, even from non-theistic observers. We can safely conclude that "God" is the only reasonable cause or explanation for the universe we observe. Although the existence of morality is not in itself proof of the existence of God (the Moral argument), it supplies another corroborating characteristic that we can ascribe to the First Cause.

It is pointed out that Mills use flawless LOGIC in his arguments that God does not exist.

First and foremost, he cannot scientifically prove that God does not exist, so the atheist has to have some sort of faith to believe in an atheistic worldview. Therefore atheism is a faith in the unseen. What the atheist would love us to believe is that atheism is based on `science so called', but as can be seen atheism has nothing to do with science, it has to do with religion or faith. The atheist would love us to believe that his argument for the non existence of God is based on neutral ground. But that is not the case, no argument is actually based on neutral ground, all arguments are based on metaphysical presuppositions or assumptions that come from somewhere. So the atheist assumes there is no God because he doesn't want there to be a God, not because there is no God!

Secondly, the word logic is metaphysical in nature and is merely assumed and used as a tool by the atheist in arguing for the non existence of God, but here is the problem. The atheist cannot account for the laws of logic for the laws of logic are not natural which refutes Darwinian evolution as well! But the Christian worldview can account for the laws of logic because they reflect the mind of God. The atheist has no right to use the laws of logic because the laws of logic belong to the theistic worldview and not the atheistic worldview. Therefore every atheist's arguments are filled with inconsistencies and arbitrary conjectures. He has no reason to believe that there is no God. The Christian on the other hand has reason to believe in his metaphysical foundation for reason that comes from a metaphysical God!

Thirdly atheism cannot account for objective moral values. Why is torturing babies for fun objectively morally wrong? In order to say some act is objectively morally wrong one must appeal to an objective moral law that condemns that act as objectively morally wrong. That standard must lie outside of the sphere of one's own biased and subjective opinion. Therefore objective moral values can only be grounded in the theistic worldview and not in an atheistic worldview. Atheism cannot account for objective moral values therefore atheism as a worldview is bankrupt! It is the position of cynical sinners who suppresses the Truth in unrighteousness.

I just want to point out that if the title of this book was true then the universe as we know it would not exist. If atheism as a worldview was true, then why is there something rather than nothing? Science deals with the search for causes. This four dimensional universe had to come from a supernatural, metaphysical or spiritual cause outside of itself which proves theism. Atheism or Darwinian evolution, [that sacred `unscientific' cow] cannot account for the existence of the universe. The atheist cannot account for why there is something rather than nothing which makes it the unintelligent path to choose.

Therefore, the Theistic worldview, the Christian worldview provides the preconditions of intelligibility and not the atheistic worldview!

I just finished reading this book and was very disappointed. While I agree that the author's main point, his arguments were weak at best. This book only helpful for those who already have faith in atheism, those searching for a true answer.

It is interesting that the adherents to this book find it necessary to post ad hominem attacks on negative reviews. The reviewer below that attacks Steven Tooley's review and states that Mills had a hard time understanding Christian apologetics and assert a one-to-one correlation between births and cancer deaths. BUZZZZZZZ Wrong answer Allen, These are both in the book. Steven Tooley even gave page numbers and used direct quotes in the case of the cancer to death rate claim. WOW such Orwellian doublespeak is pathetic.

I also have to agree with the Mr. Tooley's argument about hell. It was David Mills that agreed to the biblical definition of hell and the biblical definition of a soul. Once Mr. Mills agreed hypothetically to this then Mr. Tooley or any other reviewer has a right to criticize Mr. Mills weak argument.

A reviewer that agrees with Mr. Mills and then attacks somebody who shows that hypothesis put forward fails because the facts Mr. Mills gave to support his hypothesis are false is living in a dualistic world of schizophrenia. He wants it both ways.

This books on Atheism doesn't prove anything about the existence of God, but it says a lot about the existence of David Mills. The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by the sciences that David Mills calls upon to support his thesis: None of them tackle the question of existence itself, and that is the level on which the question has to be resolved. Every science that we know of is derivate of others: evolutionary biology is a derivative of the laws of Physics and Cosmology; and the laws of Physics and Cosmology are derivatives of the Cosmic Atom, or as some call it the Cosmic Egg. It is more correctly described as the Cosmic Point or Dot. All the laws of Physics and of Cosmology and derived from the Big Bang, which is an "explosion" of the Cosmic Point, which is the beginning of our universe.

Real reasoning has to begin with the Cosmic Point, since all the laws of nature are derived from it. So it is not use pointing out that the existence of God cannot be reached by derivative sciences: it can only be proved that these sciences are derived. Scientifically, that is all that can be demonstrated by these sciences.

David Mills finds it impossible to determine ultimate causes and seems lost in a cacophony of terms going nowhere. There is nothing in the material universe that can determine whether God exists or not. That is reached by reasoning on the power from which the universe and all its parts are derived: the Cosmic Point. I would like to see what David Mills does with that, because now he has reached ultimate end of human reasoning - but I don't think he is able or willing to go go that far. He is like the little boy coming out of the pantry with jam on on his face, explaining to his mother tha he has not been in the pantry. The evidence fo the existence of God is slightly behind the Cosmic Point - unless he conjures up multiple universes to push the question into the imagination.

What he lacks is a good course in Logic, the kind of Logic most of us were taught when we tackled Aristotle for the first time. In the matter of Logic, basic reasoning, David Mills fails miserably, like the man who said: All Russians have beards. I have a beard: therefore I am a Russian. Whatever happened to the Seven Liberal Arts? David Mills Atheism is a dead duck from the start. I don't think God has to worry.

Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska

The best part about this book is the readable format. Mills speaks conversationally, and his thoughts are competently organized.

Unfortunately, I have encountered a phenomenon in this book that I have never seen in any other book of this genre, and this flaw is absolutely fatal to the book's persuasive value: Mills makes some very controversial claims about physics, biology, etc. and yet Mills
himself is not an expert in any of those fields. That in and of itself is not dispositive, but it does mean that Mills needs to cite his sources. Unfortunately, Mills never tells us where his information comes from. When he makes various assertions, he doesn't even tell us which book he pulled them from, let alone which page number! I am forced to conclude that Mills is either deliberately concealing his sources because he has misrepresented them, or that Mills is utterly incompetent. I have literally never seen a similar book that failed to cite sources like Mills.

Am I being hyper-skeptical? I don't think so. Mills gives us good reason to doubt his accuracy. For example, on pg. 143 Mills touts the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment as the solution to the origin of life problem. Mills seems unaware that the Miller-Urey experiment has been discredited for four decades because Miller used artificial conditions that did not accurately depict the conditions of early life on Earth. That the Miller experiment has been discredited is widely acknowledged by scientists (unlike David Mills) including non-theists like Victor Stenger and Robert Hazen. I could provide other examples but I hope that one will suffice.

If Mills were to join every other theistic and non-theistic author and start citing his sources -- yes David, that means book and page number --then his arguments could be taken seriously. Right now, it sounds like just another amateur rant on Wikipedia or MySpace that happened to make it into print, and is no more credible because of it.

Let me first say I am not religious, but I just find the whole thing ridiculous how people go to such lengths to prove or disprove the existence of God. How does that solves our problems here on earth? How does that feed hungry, starving and suffering children? How does it improve our standard of living? I believe if all the energies spent in trying to show that peoples religious views of life is wrong was spent in trying to fix the problems that is making our life on earth "hell" then we would be much better off.

Let me point out that I am a chemical engineer who design and operate plants all over the world and I do not know if God exist or does not. As far as I am concern, they are as equally convincing argument for his existence as they are for his non-existence. Now why should I spend time and effort on this problem when they are better things to do with my time that is more helpful in creating a better standard living for us humans? What is more important is learning to respect the rights and opinions of each other. Living in harmony and showing "One Love" to our fellow human beings.

From reading the book's blurb that this was a `simple, straightforward and logical rebuttal to God's existence', I was initially excited by thought of a robust challenge to my faith. But how sorely disappointed I was to become!

The first chapter is a purported transcript of an interview between the author and a creationist.
Nowhere are any details given of the interview, which lead me to believe that it is fraudulent. It is constructed in such a way that the interviewer comes across as a scientific ignoramus, and Mills as a quick witted scientific genius that annihilates the religious bigotry of the asinine Christian interviewer. The whole `interview' seems just far too scripted to be genuine.
It is clear to me that the whole 40 monotonous pages (I'm not exaggerating either, 40 pages of a fabricated interview!) are nothing more than a dishonest ploy to portray himself the `crème de la crème' of the anti-religious atheists, quick witted and devastatingly shrewd and incisive.

Mills then moves on to defending atheism against charges of `atheistic inspired crimes'. He makes the bold assertion that it is "indisputable" that more deaths have occurred in the name of religion historically, than from atheism.
But the only way that he can justify this patently false claim is by totally ignoring vast deaths over the last century alone which were caused by anti-religious dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao ect, which number well over 100 million deaths.

Mills then precedes to loose all credibility when he makes a whole series of utterly ridiculous claims that would leave most sane people scratching their heads.
He starts by actually claiming that Galileo was almost put to death for inventing the telescope and discovering the moons of Jupiter!

He bizarrely claims to intimately know the pain and suffering that blacks, gays and Hispanics experience from racial and homophobic prejudice because of his atheism!

In a hilarious attempt at desperately distancing himself from anything religious, He seriously states that atheist's actually celebrate winter solstice, not Christmas!

He even claims that computers have a conscience and are thus conscious of events!

After stressing the fact that nothing could have existed prior to the Big Bang he then contradicts himself three pages later by saying that "mass-energy...existed prior to the Big Bang"! He shows no qualm whatsoever in blatantly contradicting himself when it suits him rather than admitting that his utopia of an "Atheist Universe" has deep flaws.

Mills reaches the penultimate of absurdities when he tables his argument that internet porn, in all it's vast and various disgusting perversions, is perfectly acceptable for not just adolescent boys and girls, but, believe it or not, even little children! He seriously believes that because young children are sexually inactive that there is absolutely no harm in them watching porn!

I find it incredible that this man even got this book published, let alone got a blurb form Dawkins calling it an "admirable work"! I seriously doubt that Dawkins was sober when he made that comment!

When discussing the existence of God, Mills correctly points out that the rules of logic place the burden of proof on the affirmative position; that God does exist.
But when the tables are turned so that a position instead burdens him with having to provide the proof, he just totally dodges the question.
Such as when the question is asked of his position; `if there is no creator god, then why and how is there something rather than nothing'.
Why does all this matter, energy, space and time exist if there is no God to create it?
Clearly the burden of proof is upon Mills to answer. But Mills decides that the burden is to large to explain, so instead he violates his own rule of logic and claims that the negative position, nonexistence, has the burden, and he has nothing to explain after all!
This is the second major back-flip that he skilfully preformed.

On the issue of the existence of evil he states that God is certainly responsible for all evil because he foresaw all things before He created the universe, yet He still created.
But this is like offspring blaming their parents for conceiving them knowing that they would do wrong later in their life.
The fact is that those who do wrong are always to blame for their own actions.
Anyway, even knowing of all the evil that has impacted on our own lives, would we really have been happier if we had never existed? I for one would rather this flawed life than none at all.

As bad as this book gets, Mills does make a good point occasionally. On one such rare occasion he points out those improbable events which are hailed as miracles can not be considered evidence for the existence of God if the converse, bad improbable events, are not considered evidence against God's existence. A rare good point I thought.

Mills follows the long tradition by militant atheists of garnering the most absurd claims from the least qualified creationists and extrapolating these to cover the most qualified creationists. He forces the ignorant words of some redneck southern pastor into the mouth of a distinguished professor of science.
If Mills was serious about tackling creationism he would consult the most authoritative and widely read creationist literature and cite them extensively. Either Mills is an extraordinarily lazy researcher, or his is hell-bent on wholesale deceit.

But his most egregious crime was his total failure to consult or reference any creationist source, at all. The extant of the sophism is so bad that not only does he fabricate answers, he also goes the extra mile to fabricate the questions as well!!!

I was reluctant to rate this book at all, I felt that it wasn't even deserving of half a star. But his criticism of the Intelligent Design movement was quite good and saved him from total embarrassment.

1 star

For a more comprehensive review plus page referenced notes, go to my website, a link to which will be found on my profile page

There are basically two possible responses to this question:

1) Nothing

2) Something

The idea that 'nothing' caused the universe to exist, while perhaps possible in theory, takes more faith than I am able to muster. If nothing caused it to exist, it would not exist. The beginning of the universe was quite a remarkable event. Chances are that, before the creation of the universe, nothing that we could define as 'natural' existed. There was not only no matter or energy, but probably no empty space or time, either. While this is rather difficult for us to grasp, the important point is that if we start with nothing, only nothing would logically arise from it.

Suppose I was to take an empty shoebox, completely seal it, and then some time later, open it up and find something inside of it. Without some sort of magician-type trickery, this would be impossible. You could say it would be even more impossible for our universe to come to exist on its own, since it didn't even have the metaphorical shoe box and empty space in which to begin to exist.

The other idea is that 'something' caused the universe to exist. What could we know about this 'something'? All that we would call 'natural' began to exist at the exact point that the universe began to exist, since 'natural' is a term we use to describe that which is in the universe. Whatever force caused the universe to exist, therefore, could not be a natural force. Therefore, the 'something' would have to be described as a supernatural force, though I'll admit that 'supernatural' is a vague term and not easy to define.

Science has also proven that time began to exist when the universe began to exist. The Law of Relativity has proven that time and matter are related. This belief is held as fact by such astrophysicists as Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose. Therefore, whatever force created matter could not be subject to time (at least not time as we know it). So this 'something' that created the universe is a timeless force.

Since this force created all that is natural, this force is quite obviously a creative force, a force that is able to make matter and energy out of nothing.

When the universe was created, natural laws were created. These laws were orderly enough that life in our universe became not only possible, but apparently inevitable. Science agrees that there is much order in our universe. The second law of thermodynamics states that all systems move away from order towards entropy. This is not possible unless the universe either started out incredibly orderly, or had a period where it moved from disorder towards order. Since nature could not possibly have created itself to be orderly, or move from disorder towards order by natural means alone, then the force which created the universe either specifically created it to be orderly, or had a reason to create order out of disorder. Therefore, this 'something' that created the universe is, in some sense, intelligent.

So we can logically conclude, from the scientific evidence, that whatever force that created the universe is supernatural, timeless, creative, and intelligent.

I read most of the book and became bored and didn't finish it. It is filled with the same "scientific" data, that all through it's accounts only rants against spirituality yet refutes none of it. The book makes the same fundamental error as most uneducated atheists. The book totally dismisses the possibility that God being a supernatural being has more power than the author. The author merely tries (failingly) to steer the reader into beleiving that humans must have the same power as God, and since we do not have the powers alluded to in Biblical and other writings, that God does not exist. The author also tries to deny God, since God cannot be proved by scientific methods, yet the author misses the idea fact that while God cannot be proven scientifically, God cannot be disproven either. Read the book if you can borrow it but save you money. It is long on laughable entertainment but short on reality.

The bulk of this book consists of physics written in a condescending tone at about the fifth-grade level. It describes several types of physical phenomena, and essentially, adds GOD DIDN'T DO THIS!!! to each one. This is a colossal non sequitur. Who says God didn't? According to Genesis He created the heavens and earth, but it doesn't say how. This incomplete logic colors all of the author's arguments.

An example of this is his attempt to distance atheism from Communism, by quoting an interview in which Communism is called a "religion" and is therefore not atheism. The level of obtuseness this reveals is simply breathtaking. The Communist Manifesto says specifically that Communism is atheist. That it does share some characteristics with a religion is pretty obvious, but it is a militantly atheist one. Sorry, can't get around that.

Then, perhaps as a fallback position, he attempts to whitewash Communism by pointing out how tolerant the regime in Poland was. OK, if we're going with anecdotal evidence, I'll choose another Communist regime, say . . . Albania. This is a good one, because Enver Hoxha openly declared Albania to be an atheist country in 1967. No half-measures for him: in the 2007 World Factbook it states that "there are no available current statistics on religious affiliation; all mosques and churches were closed in 1967 and religious observances prohibited."

Actually, on the issue of religious freedom, militant atheist regimes have fallen somewhere on a continuum between these extremes, and have even moved back and forth over time. However, NONE of them have particularly distinguished themselves as beacons of tolerance and light. Despite the rosy view of atheism espoused by the author, militant atheist movements have the most horrific human rights record in all of recorded history: billions enslaved, hundreds of millions dead. . . . but no, this sordid reality is not representative of REAL atheism ("pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"), it's the theory, the coming, wonderful, glowing, coming Golden Age of Atheism that's important!

This is very unscientific, not to mention irrational. One can't help wondering what audience the author intended. A real, rock-bottom fundamentalist is unlikely to read something like this, and even less likely to be swayed by it. Anyone with a modicum of education will immediately see the missing links in the author's chains of logic and dismiss his arguments as pointless (sure, charged particles do this, that proves there is no God exactly HOW?). It would appear then, that the actual audience is 1) other atheists (look how I beat up on those moronic Christians!), and 2) children. The latter is a bit disturbing, especially for those of us who'd rather our kids grew up as well-rounded, thinking, feeling, people; instead of soulless, secular, human-shaped automatons.

When I read this email I was sure that you had somehow made a mistake, because I did not (knowingly) purchase the book, "Atheist Universe" and was fairly certain that I had never even seen it. Then, this morning, I was going through a pile of stuff on my desk and there was the book in question, apparently never opened by me. Am I going nuts? Did some supernatural force put the book there? Does God exist and He wants me to read this book?

I have been researching the absurd idea that the Christian God's book, the Bible, could somehow be in conflict with the very nature that He created. I do believe in God, but see very clear problems with today's Christianity, fundamentalism, and young earth malarkey, and have a completed book on the subject. I say, "completed" with resevations. There isn't a day goes by that I don't come acoss something that should or could be added. There seems to be no end to how far off course a religion can go when left up to the tinkering of man. At the moment, I am searching for a Literary Agent with an interest in promoting a book about a subject that needs to be heard by the very people who don't want to hear it. If you have any ideas that might help, I'd be quite open to them.

Anyway, here I am with another book that was evidently given to me without any solicitation on my part whatsoever. I now have eight books that were just given to me out of the blue about various aspect of the subject I am researching. The other seven do come from known sources. Since you are asking for a review, I suspect that you might know, at least in part, just how this book got on my desk. Could you please help solve this mystery for me? I would be happy to read the book, do a review, and could have it back to you in a few weeks. Would there be any time constraints? Should I do this?

Curious Ray

Ray Moody

[email protected]

This book doesn't take on the issues it claims to. It is full of deceit. To read this book and find it interesting you will have to turn off your brains ability to think.

Bye the way, to whom it may concern, we don't live under communist regime and if a group of friends and individuals with the same view point want to review the same book they have the right to! Of course those that stand by rediculous notions such as those in this book simply want to silence the oposition. But you scare no one.

even if there is GOD..NO David Mills, Richard Dawkin and others will never believe...

i just read-----Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism...waist of time and money..

nobody cant say 100% that there is NO god...

even--- Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater)said: "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design....ect

Anthony Flew was a big atheist who debate Christians....

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Atheist Universe. If you also make the good decision to read it, you too will discover no one quite has the keen, devastating insight of David Mills. Passages from this book were quoted in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. Dawkins called David's book "an admirable work." Good read. Worth every penny.

I think this book is not only for atheists. It's even great for spiritual seekers (what I consider myself to be) who dislike dogmatic religious views.

Once you start reading it, it's hard to put it down. Very highly recommended.

I have bought three copies of this thing, due to having loaned it out and either it comming back half mangled or just not comming back at all.

Having read (now) at least a dozen books on the same subject many of them very good, this one is what I keep comming back to. If you are new to this subject this IS the book you want, not The God Delusion (which is exellent but not as good as this one for people new to the subject). I won't recount all the details of this book here, but this is the best survey of the issues and a good read besides. That is the best combination for the new reader. If there was a six stars option I would make use of it.

Deep science explained for common folk. Secular firepower to combat the nonsensical ramblings of true believers!
Well written, great stuff! If you're balancing on the fence separating blind faith and secular reason, the only other book that will transform you into an atheist this easily would be THE BIBLE itself.