The Case Against God (The Skeptic's Bookshelf)

This book undermines extreme religious fundamentalism, and in doing so, Smith has an easy ride. It deserves 5 stars because Smith makes such a strong and worthy case against the narrow and intolerant attitudes and perspectives of fundamentalism. Yet undermining extreme fundamentalism and Biblical literalism, is by no mean the same as undermining the deeper Spirit and message of Christianity.
Smith comes nowhere near achieving this, and as it happens, Smith's perspective, attitudes and tone are no less narrow and intolerant than the fundamentalists which he persecutes. Smith compares belief in God with belief in Santa Claus, he denies the necessity of human faith, and he concludes that the existence of God is "impossible".
Belief in Santa Claus is very different to belief in the nature of the Infinite and the Sustaining Reality of Being. Smith's denial of the necessity of faith is fallacious because faith is inherent to the human condition. Smith is not in the position to answer the significant question: "Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?" He also does not 'know' that the nature of the Infinite is inherently meaningless and purposeless, because such knowledge transcends the finite capacity of the human mind. Atheists simply believe it, so their perspective is grounded in faith. Even though atheists have no faith in God, the only way anyone could possess a faith-free understanding at all is to have an infallible knowledge of everything - which is an attribute given only to God.
It soon becomes apparent that Smith cannot discern the difference between the cleverness of the head and wisdom of the heart. Religious faith is grounded in the belief that there is inherent purpose and meaning to the Universe, that we are spiritual beings with a sacred purpose, and that the nature of the Infinite is Spirit with purpose. In principle, Smith is unable to refute these deeper Christian convictions, and the foundation of Smith's argument crumbles here. Ultimately, his entire case against God becomes negligible. Just as darkness cannot survive in the presence of Light, so can nothing thwart the ultimate Truth of God. While Smith nit-picks at the surface principles of dogma, the religious 'framework' of Christianity and Biblical literalism, (the Bible is the map - fallible, rather than the Territory Itself - infallible), he completely ignores the profound depths of spirituality and the greater meaning of cultivating a sound spiritual life in Christ.
Smith says, "Scratch the surface of a Christian, and you find a dishonest agnostic." This is not so, and the truth is, if you scratch the surface of an atheist who denies possessing faith, such as Smith, you find a misguided agnostic.
Overall, Smith fails to open his mind to the fact there is a great deal more to theism and Christianity than extreme fundamentalism and Biblical literalism. An interesting attempt, but fails in its ultimate goal.

As a philosophical theist who studies the comparative structure and self-referential aspects of theistic and atheistic argumentation, I much prefer the works of Kai Nielsen. But Smith's book is essential reading nonetheless.
One point generally avoided by both sides is related to an issue mentioned by Nielsen in the second chapter of his Ethics Without God: to have reasons for believing in God is to already believe in a foundational criterion which does not itself assume belief in God. He's more than right, for there are actually several prior assumptions: 1) a criterion for adjudicating the issue, 2) reasons as God-belief determiners, 3) the obligation to believe 1) and 2), and 4) the obligation to believe in God because of 1), 2), and 3).
But atheism doesn't get a free ride. The obligation to believe a universal per se---whether atheism or love or the value of inquiry---is just as vulnerable as belief in God. Why stop with merely questioning the existence of God?
And universal assumptions are just as comprehensive, exceptionless, and mind-obligating as belief in God was ever dreamed of being. As we say in philosophy, everyone has their god-statements.
Consequently, atheistic brow-beating of believers, as if they are not obeying some kind of belief-commandments, is indistinguishable from the condemnatory fundamentalist thumping so similarly disparaged in atheistic circles.
Each individual is the god of their own belief-choices. Philosophical theists believe this is the necessary functioning of the image of God as an inextricable aspect of the very nature of personal consciousness. Atheists also believe this to be simply a natural necessity of personal consciousness, but that there is nothing more to it.
But what is the status of the statement, "There is nothing more to it."? Ah, there's the reductionist rub, even if one believes it for oneself alone without prescribing it for anyone else.
I suggest the following books: Critiques of God, by Angeles [ed.], The Atheist Debater's Handbook, by Johnson, "Atheological Apologetics" by Shalkowski (American Philosophical Quarterly), and The God of Atheism by Wasson.

Overall this is a good introduction to the fallacies inherent in many theistic belief systems. If you wish to educate yourself on some of these arguments, this would be a good place to start.
As far as some of the reviews, they are laughable. The gentleman making the claim that the authors "belief" does not follow his standard is making the oldest "mistake" (not really a mistake., more of an intentional misinterpretation) in the book when it comes to evaluating how we know things. The author is attempting to come up with a standard methodology for evaluating existential claims, not claims for how we know things. But the reviewr assumes they are the same, when they are not, and that one methodology should be applicable to the other. Can you say strawman? If the reviwer wants to attack the authors paradigm for evaluating beliefs, perhaps he should start by telling us why those 3 rules are in error in a practical sense, instead of resorting to near-solipism. This is typical of those who desire to pretend that all claims are equally unfounded, hence their particular mythology should be accepted as true. Of course, this means that my assertion that we should all believe in Pinky, the Giant Carrot God should be taken equally with your assertion that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

As a convert from Atheism to Christianity nine years ago, I read 'Atheism: The Case Against God' three years ago with interest and with an open mind. I re-read it earlier this year, and I understand Smith's views and attitudes exactly, and I am very sympathetic towards many remarks and attitudes made by atheist reviewers here.
Yet I feel deeply saddened that they, like I did until nine years ago, have mis-understood, (and missed), the underlying reality of what God is all about. Namely spirituality, and the fulfilment of the God shaped hole within the hearts of human beings. Many atheists treat God as a mere piece of armchair theorising, or spend their time and energy picking holes in religious philosophies and principles, or wait to obtain scientific, physical evidence for His existence before even entertaining the idea that God exists.
To me, one word sums up 95% of Smith's book - "fallacy". Many reviewers regard Smith's arguments to be strong, yet the arguments are grounded with deceptive logic and profound fallacies. Smith persuades the reader that his assessments reveal proof that all Christians are "agnostic"; that faith is "absurd"; that the existence of God is "impossible"; that the nature of the Christian God is "impossible"; that the Christian God is "unknowable"; that atheism provides the only rational and logical path; and that all Christians are "irrational".
All of these conclusions are emotional, subjective and deeply fallacious.
It is true that many humanists and atheists view the doctrine of 'God is Dead' as a great liberation for humanity - free from the great omnipotent being from whom there could be no escape. To many 'free-thinkers', the belief that God does not exist is like discovering real freedom for the first time - the gospel of the modern age, of man who has achieved technical mastery over nature, and who can fashion it to his own purposes.
The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche spread the 'good news gospel' that "God is Dead" in 1882, yet even before his death there were signs that this gospel was not all that it claimed to be. Nietzsche himself became insane; perhaps it was no mere coincidence that the modern apostle of human freedom did not achieve spiritual liberation and human fulfilment. Instead, he found mental disintegration and despair. Such despair was the true heritage of his gospel to the world.
To sum up my views on Atheism, I will quote philosopher and humanist Bertrand Russell, with an interesting reply from his daughter, who was a Christian...
Russell: "That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave;" ... "all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand."
His daughter wrote (after her father had died): "I would have liked to convince my father that I had found what he had been looking for, the ineffable something he had longed for all his life. I would have liked to persuade him that the search for God does not have to be in vain. But it was hopeless. He had known too many blind Christians, bleak moralists who sucked the joy from life and persecuted their opponents; he would never have been able to see the truth they were hiding."

This was an absolutely wonderful book. I read a lot of theists complaining that the counterarguments he gives aren't representative of theist thought. I have to disagree. His main premise rests on the irrationality of a supernatural being existing. People believe in god, but they're not even sure of what they're believing in- they cannot list attributes about him. If they do, they are attributes which man cannot comprehend. This places god into the realm of the "unknowable"- beyond man's scope of reason. To claim to have knowledge of the unknowable is simple contradicton, and therefore irrational.

Since believing in a god is irrational, he attacks faith, and how it isn't a valid way of obtaining knowledge. I won't get into a dissection of the whole book, but I will recommend it for people who realize the importance of the scientific process and reason in the world. If you choose to believe based on faith, then... well, you are an irrational person, and your arguments hold no worth

This book is the gospel of atheism. It is a MUST read for anyone who is seriously examining the viewpoint of atheism.

Smith's point is that when examining the question of God's existence, the burden of proof is on the theist. This makes sense since the only proof an atheist could present for God's nonexistence is the absence of evidence for his existence. And the atheist's position is that there is no evidence for God. Thus, it is up to the theist to make his/her case. He then examines the arguments that theists put forth and reveals the flaws in each one. In the end, having failed to demonstrate the existence of God, he concludes that the only rational alternative is atheism.

But be warned. I would not recommend this book for the philosophically challenged or those seeking a "light" intellectual book. It will not be a book that most can read in one sitting, but it is thoroughly enjoyable.

Next to the bible, no book presents as good an argument against god-belief than does "Atheism: The Case Against God." I first read this book in the late 1980s after I had a terrible experience as a born-again Christian. I knew for sure that much fraud, hypocrisy, and fanaticism existed in the Christian religion. I also had a gut feeling that many of its claims were highly suspect. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to remain a Christian because of its polemics.
"Atheism" changed all that for me. Smith's arguments are clear and convincing. For example, on page 223 he says: "Since the Christian God is a mass of unintelligible characteristics, it is impossible--in principle--rationally to demonstrate its existence." Bravo! Smith is quite correct here, and it is easy to prove that he is: ask any believer--Christian or otherwise--to explain exactly what it is that he or she wants you to believe in. Ask them to be explicit and to give a definition of "God" that is understandable. I guarantee you that no Christian or Muslim or Jew will be able to supply this type of answer. If you disagree with me than try this tactic. You will win the debate every time.
But, hey, the real point is not to win debates: the real goal of rational thinking is to accept truth and reject falsehoods especially pernicious falsehoods like religious belief. "Atheism: The Case Against God" is a good place to start for anyone wishing to break the shackles of theistic belief.

In "Atheism: The Case Against God", Smith makes a very good case against God and for atheism. He also shows that many of those who call themselves agnostics really are atheists.

He points out many inconsistencies in the Christian god and shows that it can not possibly exist, and also gives many good arguments against gods in general. He makes a good case against faith as an alternative method to reason of acquiring knowledge.

The book almost deserves five stars, but it tends to get a bit repetitive at times and some parts are a bit heavy handed. Anyway, this is definately a book that everyone interested in religion or atheism should read.

An outstanding book that clearly outlines the philosophical foundations of the atheist movement. This book will definitely shake the foundation of the unlearned theologian. However, it does present several fatal flaws, such as not separating knowledge and comprehension, assigning all theological thought to a biased definition of agnosticism, and never truly refuting St. Thomas Aquinas and the Summa Theologica. This is a must read for atheist and theist alike!

This is the first book that I have ever read that made me get up on my feet and clap when I finished it. This book so thoroughly debunks any reason to believe in the Christian god that I had to read it twice just to make sure I understood each point. Having grown up Christian it was very enlightening to find that my lost faith has a pillar of truth to stand upon. Life has never been better since I gave up my faith and I am on a wonderful journey through life knowing that this is it, this is my chance to live, it is the only chance I will get and I will use it to make my life, and the lives of those around me better. Thank you Mr. Smith for helping me conceptualize what I've always felt in the back of my mind. When you give up belief in angels, you also give up the belief in demons. When you understand that death is final, living becomes much more important. I'm sure that some will find this book to be too academic, but if you have patience to read through each passage slowly, and reread if you have to, you will find that this is an amazing work that you will want to share with others. Enjoy and fear not the loss of god, it is the awakening of the human.

Even after thirty years, this is still by far the best primer on atheism. There is plenty of info for someone who is looking for an introduction to the subject, or for those who may be more versed. Smith covers all of the major arguments for the existence of God (cosmological, ontological, etc.) and finds them wanting. A particular favorite (for me) is the final section showing the absurdity of the idea of the Christian god and the many contradictions of the Bible. If you're looking to read only one book on atheism, you would be hard pressed to do better than this.

For those interested in learning more about atheism: just buy the book. It's a solid recounting of arguments against theism. A great many of the reviews that follow are not reviews at all -- they are rebuttals. These "reviews" don't have anything to do with the quality of the actual book. They do not imply that Smith writes a shoddy version of the arguments for atheism; they simply tell you, by way of their own shoddy counterarguments, that Smith has written some sort of argument for atheism, a fact you could've easily gathered from the title. That the reviewers don't have any clue about the difference between a good argument and a bad argument is evident in the nature of their own arguments: they are generic and weak -- stock theistic responses to all of the usual atheistic arguments. These reviewers would give an identical and equally shoddy review to ANY book that addresses this particular subject matter from an atheistic point-of-view, NOT because the author is not a persuasive or compelling writer, but simply because they disagree with him. A review ought to establish whether a writer is good at what he does, not whether what he does is intolerable in-and-of-itself. Clearly Smith is an effective atheistic writer -- theists can't even see his books online without dashing off a few weak rebuttals to keep their fellow lambs from reading it. The fact of the matter is that the arguments against God are weighty and compelling and Smith presents a good introduction for those who are interested in thinking critically about the subject. I recommend the book: buy it, read it, and see for yourself how well the case for atheism stands up. If you don't want to read a book of atheistic philosophy, then don't buy a book of atheistic philosophy. You don't need a bunch of amateur apologists to tell you that a book called _Atheism: The Case Against God_ is going to put forth arguments about free-will and existence. Whether you like the conclusion or not, what matters is whether the arguments are well-articulated, and I think they are.

When I went to the bookstore searching for a book on atheism, I actually thought I wouldn't find anything. Much to my surprise I found George H. Smith's book, Atheism: The Case Against God.
Sitting on the floor in the aisle, I began to read the introduction. It was as if someone had taken the thoughts in my mind and made a book of them.
Having been raised by a "born again" Christian mother, doubting the existence of God was never very popular in my house. And yet, I still had many unanswered questions. Also, being surrounded by Christians I assumed I was the only person who thought God didn't exist.
It turns out I was wrong. This is an incredible book. It points out the many arguments to the existence of a god, and better yet, the problems of Christianity.
It is written in a manner that is (for the most part) easy to understand, and yet, still has many philosophical and theological terms and ideas. And, much to my delight, it even had touches of humor (such as the sections about the unie, etc.)
I strongly feel that in this society, where atheism is a minority opinion, any atheist should have this book. (Especially if they are going to have to be defending their belief, or lack of belief rather, to Christians.)
I feel even stronger, though, that any person who is considering Christianity, or even a person who already is one, should read this book. It offers "the other side of the story" that one should definitely hear before they make their decision.

This book reads like a scholarly journal and could use some levity every few pages. I'm sure most Christians won't be reading this (as I was discouraged to read books from the opposing camp while I was Christian and Mormon), but the book is excellent anyway for those on the fence.

You can probably skip the first third of the book which clarifies definitions. There are interesting things to find, but it gets more interesting later.

I think your best bet is on the devil. He seems less ruthless than Jehovah. Moreover, the devil used cunning to persuade men to follow him--he was weak and perhaps required dishonesty to achieve his ends; whereas, Jehovah, though all-powerful, uses threats and pitiless, brutal force to buy his children's love. Take your pick, or pick neither.

As anyone can see by the number of passionate reviews, this book is extremely thought-provoking. As books of this caliber tend to do, it causes you to love it or shove it. With much erudition, Smith convincely demonstrates that all arguments for the existence of "a god or gods" are irrational and dubious at best. He also tackles a variety of other related issues such as ethics. It seems that many of the negative reviewers were not able to grasp Smith's point that "God cannot exist." This proposition is not founded upon faith as one reviewer has suggested, but from the premise that since all arguments for god's existence are contradictory and irrational, it naturally follows that a self-contradictory being cannot exist. In order to make the step to prove god's existence, the idea of god itself must first be shown to be coherent, which he demonstrated not to be the case. This book should be read by everyone, regardless of one's classification as a believer, atheist, or agnostic. It's rigorous logic and sound reasoning is difficult to refute and could very well serve as an intro to logic and critical thinking. To end this diatribe, I shall paraphrase one of Smith's example:
Everything in nature is limited by whatever characteristics it possesses. Acorns don't grow into elephants (if it did it would cease to be an acorn in any meaningful way). But God is a "super"-natural being and not limited by nature. He can't have attributes and still be supernatural. If god has characteristics, then god must be "this" as opposed to "that" and therefore limited. Since god is a "super"-natural being, he cannot be limited, and therefore can have no determinate characteristics, and a god with no attributes or characteristics is equivalent to nothing at all! (How would you know a god one if you ran into one!)

The author of this book makes the case that atheism doesn't need to be proven; only that theism, and in particular, belief in the Christian God, simply cannot be deemed acceptable by any reasonable person. The books layout and flow are excellent, with plenty of chapters leading into other larger realms of philosophical inquiry and debate. Certainly an excellent book to give any "believing" relatives or friends for Christmas.

upside: this book's not bad. i read some of the reviews here and believe they are rather harsh. compared to other atheism books, it's above average. smith offers a fairly complete analysis on the merits of atheism and convincing arguments against possible theistic responses in a nice easy-to-read style. for those interested in atheism, this is a great place to start.
downside: a bit outdated, first written over twenty years ago.
overall: smith accomplishes his objective: to present a stong "case against god." will it change minds? perhaps, but like any good atheism book, it makes you think.

Overall, I felt that Smith's work was a superb introduction to atheism, and a powerfull argument against the existence of God. However, Atheism: The Case against God comes up short of its ultimate goal.
Smith's chapter on the definition of atheism I found to be quite good. I must say that I agree with his points in the first chapter, and I would recommend the book- if for nothing else- than just as an introduction to atheism. Smith's chapter on reason vs. faith I found to be quite good, and I agree with all of his points there as well. (I define faith differently than does Smith. In the end, I agree with him that "faith" as he defines it is indeed useless.)
Smith's chapter on refuting the arguments for God's existence is a bit outdated, although this is of course not Smith's fault. However, it does unfortunately render the chapter basically useless except as an introduction for someone not familiar with the issue. The final chapter, dealing with morality, tries to set up an atheistic morality. Whatever Smith's view on morality is, it is certainly not based on an objective moral code, but more of a subjective "this makes me feel happy" type of morality. Ultimately, I find this sort of morality to be essentially useless.
One overriding theme I found with this book is that it targeted Christianity quite specifically. In fact, there was even a chapter dedicated to discussing biblical matters! This seems inappropriate in a book that is supposed to refute the existence of God/gods, not Christianity. Why doesn't the Hindu god get bashed at all? One has to wonder.
Smith makes some great points throughout the book, and there is still quite a bit I am chewing over. However, this work contains quite a few flaws that should become apparent upon a second reading.

I read the book and decided to post a review. After reading through the many other reviews given, It became apparent that this book was either refuted by theists, or appraised by atheists. Well, here's my story. I grew up 17 years of my life as a catholic. My family goes to church every Sunday, and I was living a fairly simple life believing in god -- content that I would finish a happy life and move on to heaven. In these years I didn't run into many atheists, so I really had no reason NOT to believe in god, because there were basically no arguments against god. This all changed when I read this book 3 years ago. (I didn't purchase it on the store, but since then I did lose it and was thinking about purchasing it again) I understand why the theist claims that faith is not merely limited to a belief in god, it entails the very nature of human thought so to speak. I too, thought the same thing, I would use faith in many ways other than believing in god. I would hope that I would not strike out when I was at the plate, I would pray that some day I would be just like my dad, I would beg for forgiveness if, let's say, robbed a cookie from the cookie jar and got caught. I would do all of this and not really even recognize god as the decision maker as to how any of these scenarios would result. While this kind of faith is taken from a younger point of view, it still carries today in different forms. We all want to know why we are here, not just us humans on earth, but the planets and stars and the universe as well. The theistic approach? God is why we are here. God is eternal and we are not, right? Hmmmmm... It is an acceptable answer to some extent, but really doesn't explain how or why we are here. After all, if that is the answer and it is proven, then I will still be at the same standpoint asking this question: How and why is god here? So we can't really deem god as the answer to the universe, nor can we conclude that the universe or god, if either, is eternal. This cause/effect argument for god gets us nowhere. Another thing, theists commonly position the athiests to do the explaining, while they sit back and conclude that their arguments go beyond reason with faith. In a sense, their arguments are superior, because reason itself is limited to experience and cannot reach the realm of supernatural understanding. I don't know about everyone, but I myself cannot understand the benefits of believing anything other than reason when concluding truth. Yes, I may not be able to believe in a supernatural being, but the only thing I'm really going to miss out on is heaven, right? Heaven, hmmmmmm.... all I have to say is think about it a little more than what you've heard. Most will think of it as a place of omnihappiness (that word coined by me just now) without giving it much thought. But think about it this way, what is happiness to us? Is it having a good wife? Is it having money? Is it believing in god? Is it finding the answers? What does heaven offer that we can't find down here on earth? I expect to hear such answers as: heaven doesn't have crime, violence, murder, cheating, ect. But why does god only disclude such negative things in heaven? why not just disclude such things as those down here on earth? And hell? Well, equally the same. Why is the devil even around? Can't god with his omnipotent powers destroy the devil? I know that is a fairly childish argument, but think about it. Theists will claim such proposterous and far streched ideas that are stated in the bible like: the devil was one of god's deciphals that turned on him. Well, how can you turn on an omniscient being that created you? If you are a being that created everything even your deciphels, couldn't you create one that wouldn't turn against you? George H Smith will show you things you never thought of before. And believe me, as you get older, you don't always get smarter, but you USUALLY get more ignorant to views that oppose yours. I was lucky to establish a basis for atheism at such young of an age. I try to bring up my viewpoints to my parents and they won't even listen, almost like they are disgusted with my thoughts. This is why I think religion is NOT all good and there ARE reasons not to believe in it. Have a good one.

This is a must read for anyone who strives for intellectual integrity, truth, and open mindedness. The author painstakingly goes through all the arguments for the existence of a god and refutes them one by one in a thorough critical analysis. I personally think this is the definitive book on this subject. If you read it, you probably don't need any of the new crop of books on the non-existence of a god (such as Sam Harris's The End of Faith or Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great).

Also, in addition to refuting the existence of a god, the author discusses in the final chapter the Christian Ethics and their effects.

Obviously, very highly recommended. Philosophy at its best.

The belief that there isn't a God is extremely hard to comprehend, for if there isn't a God, how did we all come to be? But then again we can't see God, so that brings up the whole theory of believing in the unseen. If we can't see something, then it must not be there. But if we believed this, we would be dead. In the wide expanse of people I know, no one has seen the air. But yet, we all breath it everyday. In fact, you can't see the air, but you can see signs of it. When the wind blows it, we see leaves move, or we feel it's soft caress on our skin. It's the same way with God. In the New Testament when Saul, a persecutor of Christians, saw God in all his brilliance, he went blind by the beauty before him. But God doesn't want to have to be so drastic with the rest of us, so He chose less dramatic way to soften our hearts. I just ask you today to think about what I have said. You don't have to believe it, but if you've read at least this far, something must have compelled you to do so. People believe things, because they have proof to back it up, and I do! If this has interested you in any way, or you feel that you need to tell me your views on my review. E-mail me, and I'll be more than glad to listen. In Christ's Everlasting Love, A Friend Who Cares

Reading this book was the first venture into my exploration of an alternative to Christianity, and I must say, I was surprisingly satisfied with the knowledge and insight I gained upon my completion of it. The book opens with a nessecary, albeit tedious, explanation of what the term 'atheism' stands for, and what it does not (i.e. anti-religion). Afterwards, Smith wastes no time in getting to the core of the book -- examining and disproving the concept of a supreme being (God), including the 'classical' arguments for the existence of a god (creationism theory, for example). It deserves to be noted that the book deals mainly with Christianity, and the flaws thereof. As this is the only religion I am familiar with, I found that all the more appealing. However, a reader with little concern for or familiarity with Christianity may wish to consider other sources on Atheism. As a first-time read on the study of Atheism, I would have to recommend picking this one up. The books' comparison on reason vs. faith was a bit monotonous for me, but overall I found it highly interesting and enlightening -- particularly the final chapter, entitled "The Sins of Christianity." Worth checking out.

I'm glad that there are many books about atheism and natural coming out, because it's a discussion that I don't think should ever end. But to me, the magnum opus of all atheism has already been written, and it's this book. Smith tackles topic after topic effectively and logically. He even discusses 'tangent' topics like Universal Skepticism that I think any philosophically-minded person should be aware of. I can't recommend this book enough--and I mean that to anyone of any belief system who is serious about intellectual honesty and philosophical curiosity.

Although not the best philosophical defense of atheism, and not nearly as comprehensive and universal as, say, Michael Martin's magnum opus, Smith's book serves as an excellent introduction to an atheistic epistemology. Smith's arguments are clear, concise and, for the most part, persuasive.
I can't help but notice that most people who reject the book -- one example is the individual who reviewed this book on 1/19/00 -- do not offer any good, sound reasons for their rejection; the above mentioned reviewer, for instance, dismissed a certain dialouge-form argument in "The Skepticism of Faith" as fallacious, simply because it IS a dialogue! The fact is, Smith's book makes many people feel uncomfortable, and justly so.
Although it cannot be construed as a comprehensive defense of atheism -- Smith's arguments are based off of his empirical philsophy, which can only be called neo-Objectivist -- Smith's book serves as an excellent starting point from which to study atheological philosophy. ~DH

This book was the first one I have read concerning atheism and the existence of God, and I have to say, it was an excellent and thought provoking read. I've been an agnostic for 2 years now, and because of this book I have been persuaded to become an atheist completely. This book, while technical and philosophical in many parts, is quite easy to understand. It uses a simple and logical format which systematically attacks the theistic beleif of god, and it makes perfect sense. This book is bulletproof in it's reasoning and is therefore an excellent debating aid as well as practical guide to why the atheist disbeleives in a god. George Smith, the author, includes not only his own reason and logic, but the ideas and philosophies of many prominent atheists.
Smith also includes suppositions and philosophies of many prominent theologians and apologetics, and after stating them, he explains why they cannot possibly lie within the realm of reason or logic. This book belongs on any atheist's bookshelf. If you want to read a truly remarkable analysis of theism from the atheist viewpoint, I highly reccomend this book.

Basically, in this book George H. Smith promotes a "strong" form of atheism, i.e. he claims it is impossible that God can exist. Well, I don't believe God exists, but I do think it's possible some kind of God exists, if not, perhaps, the strawman Christian God that Smith pounds away at with semantic games and some rather shabby argumentation (not to say, of course, that I think he's wrong, just that he argued poorly).

But Smith furthermore claims that belief in God makes such things as morality and science logically indefensible. I've read this argument before, and I have yet to understand how anyone could take it seriously. The fact is, with the _possible_ exception of Catholics, theists overall do not commit more crimes than nontheists; if you exclude Catholics (though this may be a matter of racial issues, I admit), perhaps they on average commit fewer crimes, in fact. Period. End of story. The praxis of it is there. Smith's airy fairy games are thus rendered irrelevant.

The slippery slope argument employed (if you believe in something irrational like God, you have no basis for rationality at all) is ridiculous and boring, and is the exact equivalent of the theist's specious argument that the atheist has no foundation for morality. Lots of people will always believe in God -- I no longer harbor any illusions about an enlightened future when more than 10% of the world will believe otherwise. But I also no longer think the world would be much better even if that did come to pass. Anyone who still agrees with Smith's overall message, perhaps, should wake up, too.

Thoughtful theists will always find a reason to believe in God, because they really do need to. Books like Smith's only aggravate the less thoughtful.

(P.S.: And let's not forget his failure to mention once the concept of deism, but that's another story.)

Anyone who has carefully read theology especially Aquanis knows how full of holes Smiths logic is. This column does not have enough space to refute all of his arguments, but I will examine a few points. Smith claims that God doesn't exist. God is defined as " he who is." In other words God is another name for reality. How can this be refuted? Nor is this commiting the fallacy of inference from a label. God is absoulte being. Thus it is illogical to argue if God exists or not. Aquanis argued from the five ways not to show whether God exists or not, but to make it easier for people to see that God is reality itself. Anyone who has read even part of the summa theologica and examines it carefully knows this. God is also personal. It is impossible for personal beings to exist from an impersonal source. His arguments against hell, also does not make any sense. It is true that God is all good, but he is also all just. He must punish evil. As long as evil con! tinues punishment continues, hence an eternal hell. His claim that religion lowers self esteem is false. Christ said to love your neighor as yourself. Is not love of self the essence of self esteem? A wise man is wise because he examines both sides of an issue, not just one. This book is seriously biased, and does not present a convincing case for atheism.

Mr. Smith does an excellent job making the case for atheism in an easy-to-read book. He seems to be extremely well read on the subject of the existence of God (as evidenced by his many quotations and cites). He does a great job of presenting almost every atheistic argument conceivable and as well as providing theistic responses to almost every argument and then refuting them. I found myself thinking counter-arguments only to find them answered in the next paragraph. Mr. Smith's logic is sound and objections to it are practically non-existent. Although the book does get a little dry when Smith begins to talk about ethics, overall the reading is interesting and fascinating. The book does seem to end in on an odd note (he just stops writing after critizing the ethics of Jesus) and a conclusion would provide a fitting end to his very well-structured work. If you belong to any theistic religion, after reading this work be prepared to seriously rethink your beliefs--this book could very well change your life.

The book does an excellent job of exposing the contradictions and irrationality of theism and the myths of christianity in particular.
I strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in understanding the illogic of theism or who is interested in obtaining more intellectual ammunition with which to combat the epidemic of primitive superstition prevalent in our society today.

Smith begins by debunking common myths about atheism, such as atheism is immoral, and by recounting some of the ways atheists have been mistreated in the past. There was a time, for instance, when atheists could not give testimony on a court of law, since it was assumed that the oath to tell the truth (which was in those days taken on the Bible) would not bind an atheist! (As if it /would/ bind a crook). This meant that atheists were practically barred from bringing lawsuits.

He moves on to consider the question of whether the concept of God can be defined with sufficient coherence to warrant belief. "...Even if it is demanded that the existence of God be accepted on faith, we still must know what it is we are to have faith in." The chapter argues that the traditional attributes of God: that God is supernatural and that God is a transcendent being beyond human understanding, implicitly in the first case and explicitly in the second, preclude the possibility of a coherent definition, and that belief in God is unwarranted in the same way that belief in a "unie" or any other undefined idea is unwarranted.

Next, the God of Christianity is considered. Smith argues that the hyperbolic attributes (my phrase): All-wise, All-powerful, etc. are an attempt at pseudo-definition, and that these, too, fail to define God clearly, and that belief is such an ill-defined entity is therefore not possible.

Smith doesn't knock down straw men. Skipping way ahead to the chapter on cosmological arguments for the existence of God, he presents the first cause argument in the strongest form I have ever seen it, even from theologians (I have not read every theologian). Only then does he point out the flaws.

Smith, it turns out, is a libertarian, and fond of quoting Ayn Rand. This book is his first, published originally in 1974. It is, according to the Wikipedia, considered a classic of American freethought.

To my ear, the book does suffer a little from its dated, gender-biased language ("...Man's happiness..." etc). It was published, I think, right on the cusp of the era that would cleanse such language from our speech, but it was common in that time and was employed by women writers such as Ayn Rand as well. I cut my philosophical teeth on Objectivism, and it never bothered me then.

How much has changed in thirty-three years. Since I have not been delving into older philosophers and fiction lately, my ear has grown unused to such language. Time and again I found myself thrown out of considering the argument on its own merit.

This may not be a problem for readers who have not been so modern-era centric as I apparently have been. It is, in any case, certainly beside the point of the book's argument, which is superb and which deserves serious consideration by everyone.

I first read Atheism:The Case Against God back in 1986 at the age of thirteen. At the time the book proved to be the most important piece of literature in my life & led to my "detoxing" from the drug-like reliance on a belief in a god that so many confused masses still subscribe to.
I found then as today that Mr. Smith's writing style & arguments were both concise & accessible to the "common man" as well as those already well versed in the arguments for a non-belief in a deity(although he also succesfully argues in his book that the burden of proof lies with the believer & NOT the atheist). I would whole-heartedly recommend this book; not only to those who are questioning or are not afraid to question their belief system but also to those who have already embraced reason in their lives as it most certainly will arm you with very persuasive arguments and rhetorts based on logic to counter the emotion-based sermons that "believers" are so willing to share with us. A great book to share with teens.

I read this book, for the most part, where I work. This morning I got permission to put an "Atheist" book at a the headquarters fire station since those of religion have their bibles there already. I would like to do more to promote Atheism in the way that Christians force their religion on US (and other countries) citizens. I don't suppose Christians would allow that though. I am off to buy a copy for the fire station.......

How do we acquire knowledge? The only means we have is reason, because it is self correcting. Faith, on the other hand, is not a reliable means of acquiring knowledge because it provides no means of distinguishing truth from untruth.

If one believed in the demon theory of disease, one would be skeptical when Louis Pasteur's discovery of germs led to the hypothesis that killing them would cure disease. But if many physicians put this hypothesis to the test and found it to be true, then one would be obliged to change one's belief.

This is reason.

If one believed that God hand crafted every being, and then fossils were found in layers that tended to show that the theory of gradual evolution might be true, and if one dismissed this evidence, saying that God put the fossils there to test one's faith, this would abdicate reason.

This is faith.

Faith can make us paint ourselves into a corner. If evidence appears that shows us to be wrong. then we must justify our beliefs with outrageous explanations. Look at the traditional proofs for the existence of God: They collapse under their own weight.

Rationalists, too, believe wrong things, but they are willing to change their minds in the face of new evidence. This self correction is the only reliable way that humanity has to acquire new knowledge.

There may be a god or gods, but the test of reason requires evidence. Let it be brought forth.

This book presents sound arguments that deny a theist any possible way to reasonably justify his/her belief in God. Many arguments for God's existence have evolved a little since this book was published, but the basics for refuting them in their current state are there. I saw a review on here that said something along the lines of, "Smith can't answer why there is something as apposed to nothing at all." Well, a theist can't answer "why is there a god as apposed to nothing at all?" Anyone who still has questions after reading this book should take some time to evaluate his/her questions, because if they are valid questions, their answers are in the book. If they aren't valid questions, the reasons they are invalid are also in the book. It is extremely rare that a theist can be argued out of his/her belief, but I personally know of 3 Christians that became atheists after reading Smith's work. To continue to believe after reading it is to openly reject reason.

George H. Smith does a tremendous job of defining atheism and theism and provides a very good introduction to the philosophy of atheism for the layman.
In the first part of his book, Smith demonstrates that the burden of proof is on the theist and that the theist must first define god or ascribe characteristics to god in order to provide evidence for one. This is his argument for implicit atheism (that is, lack of belief in god or gods).
He goes on in the second part of the book to show the inadaquacies of both the God of the philosophers and specifically the God of Christianity. He shows the incompatability of the various characteristics of the Christian God and the retreat into meaningless agnosticism made by the philosophical theists. This is his argument for explicit atheism (denial of existence of god or gods).
This book should provide the atheist with more insight into philosophical atheism and should provide the theist with an advanced (even after 20 years) argument for atheism and something to think about.

This was hands down the worst thing I’ve ever read. I am a Christian and have read many atheist books and this is absolutely the worst argumentation. He tries to put God in a realm where He can’t be defined in a feeble attempt to alleviate himself from moral accountability. He TOTALLY misrepresented the Reformed Christian faith and didn’t answer any objections but went off into unrelated tangents. Such as he never answers or tried to address the obvious implications of a designed universe but tries to question whether or not the universe can even claim to be designed. This book is a joke and makes Dawkins look like an unparalleled genius compared to him

Mr. Smith did a splendid job. This is evident from the ruffled feathers of all the Bible believer who voiced their bitter disapproval. To some of whom I say please, address the arguments, be clear and concise and for god's sake (excuse the expression) no more idiotic ranting. George H. Smith's book is the stuff that disturbs the comforted and comforts the disturbed. If ones faith cant stand up to criticism then it should be re-evaluated. ...Thank you Mr. George H. Smith.

In my opinion, this book provides a good introduction to atheism and related philosophical issues. The hostile-sounding title might put some people off, but Smith makes it clear in the first section of his book that the primary focus of the book is whether or not theistic claims should be accepted as true. If one can show that theistic belief if flawed (the case against god), then one supports atheism.
Smith then proceeds to do just that for the remainder of his book. He covers basic and important subjects such as god concepts, faith, morality, and common arguments for god. Smith argues that no rational person can accept theism as true and he discusses the philosophical problems of many theistic arguments. Smith writes in a non-technical style, and this may be why the book is popular. I think Smith's book could serve as a good starting point for approaching more thorough and technical books on atheism.
Smith spends much of the book analyzing Christianity, and I would have preferred it if he spent more time looking at theism in general. Throughout the book, he describes major flaws in Christianity, and after awhile it appears as though he's just whipping a dead horse. Of course, it's a dead horse that many people insist on riding, so I suppose that critiquing it from several perspectives may help to convince some of the riders that they're not going anywhere on that beast.
If you are a philosophical layperson who wants to learn more about atheism, then this is the book you should read.
Now, if I may digress, it appears that some of the reviews posted before mine do not really review the book at all. Instead, they provide theistic arguments that supposedly refute the arguments that Smith makes in his book. It is interesting to note that the theistic arguments offered below are actually covered in Smith's book, where he shows them to be flawed. It makes me wonder if some of those reviewers actually read or understood the book.

Smith offers some very powerful arguments addressing not just the existence of god, but the very intelligibility of the notion of a god. His criticism is forceful, and the book should be read for this alone. Still, there are problems. Smith seems to be not quite current in some areas relevant to his arguments. He accepts a "justified true belief" version of knowledge, ignoring the fact that Gettier undermined this view in 1963. He is blissfully ignorant of the fact that science tells us that some things happen for no reason at all (see quantum mechanics). He takes explanation to be a philosophically unproblematic issue. Unfortunately for Smith, some of his arguments rest on these mistaken ideas. His chapter presenting a "rational morality" is a mess; for instance, he freely equivocates on meanings of the word 'ought' -- a major sin (heh heh) if one is writing a chapter on ethics. In spite of the fact that I felt Smith ran out of gas as the book wound down, I still find the strengths of the text make the work well worth reading.

I really enjoyed this book. I have the highest respect for George H. Smith because of his respect for reason and logic and his courage to say the things he believes. He can be harsh and a bit unfair to theists at times, which is why I am not giving the book 5 stars, but it is still an excellent choice for anyone interested in the subject of atheism.

Smith offers some very powerful arguments addressing not just the existence of god, but the very intelligibility of the notion of a god. His criticism is forceful, and the book should be read for this alone. Still, there are problems. Smith seems to be not quite current in some areas relevant to his arguments. He accepts a "justified true belief" version of knowledge, ignoring the fact that Gettier undermined this view in 1963. He is blissfully ignorant of the fact that science tells us that some things happen for no reason at all (see quantum mechanics). He takes explanation to be a philosophically unproblematic issue. Unfortunately for Smith, some of his arguments rest on these mistaken ideas. His chapter presenting a "rational morality" is a mess; for instance, he freely equivocates on meanings of the word 'ought' -- a major sin (heh heh) if one is writing a chapter on ethics. In spite of the fact that I felt Smith ran out of gas as the book wound down, I still find the strengths of the text make the work well worth reading.

I really enjoyed this book. I have the highest respect for George H. Smith because of his respect for reason and logic and his courage to say the things he believes. He can be harsh and a bit unfair to theists at times, which is why I am not giving the book 5 stars, but it is still an excellent choice for anyone interested in the subject of atheism.

For years George Smith's book has been the gold standard in atheism. He presents the arguments for/against god(s) very convincingly, and all atheists--and all theists, quite honestly--should be familiar with his work. After they have read it and thought about it rationally, of course all theists should atheists!
However, Smith ONLY focuses on the arguments for/against god(s) to the exclusion of other important contemporary issues, including church/state separation, the debate between science and religion, and the worldwide phenomenon of fundamentalism. Also, he continues to make certain non-rational assumptions and claims, particularly the one that there are rational and irrational beliefs. However, even by his own measure, if we look at belief itself more closely, we see that all beliefs are irrational by definition. They might not all be WRONG, but then some guesses are right too. The question is whether one arrives at one's positions by reason (evidence and logic) or by some other process. If one arrives by evidence and logic, then one has knowledge, not belief. If one does not arrive by reason, they one has belief, not knowledge. So, all beliefs--even the (accidentally) correct ones--are nonetheless irrational. And why would you want to hold an irrational position that might equally well be false or true?
[...]

Smith presents and interesting and often compelling case against God. However, none of his ideas are new. Instead, they are simply rewordings of his predecessors like Kant et al. Nonetheless, it does present an interesting case that causes Christians to think. However, as a Christian, it does nothing to deter my well-reasoned belief in God.

A mind expanding and insightful look into Atheism. Mr. Smith's arguments are clear and logical. The author often includes the opposition's opinions and counters to his arguments and brings them to conclusions. In only a few cases, the other side is not fully explored. This may have to do more with the purpose of the book than anything else. It is not intended as an all encompassing tome on Atheism. I am convinced that the book could have been much, much longer. Mr. Smith keeps the length of the book manageable. This book will make you use your brain!
The only negative aspects are that the book was sometimes a bit dry. It was also one of the most difficult books for me to read. This was because I found myself thinking over all of the issues and drifting out of the book! It is not a book you can read cover to cover as a novel. You are forced to think.
Thanks Mr. Smith. Nice job.

"There is...finite standards."
Here we get a hint of Christian presuppositionalism. Simply put, logic and ethics are contingent on God; he decides what they are. First, let's examine logical laws. Smith pointed out that these were the law of identity, the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction. If the law of identity and it's two corrolaries are contingent on God, then that means that are not necessarily true and that he can reverse them. In other words, he can make the capital of Saskatchean Regina and not Regina at the same time. However this is absurd. At this point, I will be accused of having my own presuppositions and that I can not condemn the Christian presuppostitionalist for having his. However, this accusation would be foolish; how can the law of identity and its two correlaries be reversed? The answer is they can't. The Christian by saying God existed before logical laws simply affirms the truth of the logical laws: Before the universe existed, God was god and not something else (identity); God was creating and therefore not also not creating at the same instance (law of non-contradiction). Of course the theist can say that they do not apply to God since these laws only make sense with several things and it can't when there's only God. However, Christians have their God as omniscient and hence he knew what he was going to create. He had concepts and ideas of people and other things that he was about to create; hence he was distinguishable and seperate from the upcoming universe and his thoughts of it. Therefore, the Christian by claiming God is omniscient, shoots himself in the foot when trying to claim the law of identity did not apply to God pre-creation.
Regarding ethics, Christians like to claim there are morally objective judgements that are true or false. This reviewer would have us believe that humans must obey these rules but God does not have to. In others words this approach to ethics is a combination of divine command and divine privilege. Christians grant that humans are agents and have free will and this is why we are subject to moral praise and moral condemnation for our actions. Since Christians also believe that we are made in God's image and likeness (Genesis), that means God is an agent with free will as well. So since humans are subject to moral rules based on being agents with free will, God must be as well since he is an agent with free will. Christians claim that humans can not say something is right or wrong just because they say so and yet this is exactly what they say God can do thereby making morals applying to all humans. Christians are basically saying that some free moral agents have to obey while other free agents do not. They reserve a special privilege for God; might makes right. They deny this might is right theory for humans yet reserve it for God. The inconsistency is too blatant to ignore; but this reviewer and other Christians have somehow found a way. Actually, they see the inconsistency but ignore it. Tsk tsk tsk.
"If there...of appeal."
So because the theist has a book about a God, and he defines God as being all perfect and all absolute, that means that anything out of the bible is automatically true? Sorry but that doesn't fly. This type of linguistic trickery did not work with the ontological argument and does not work here.
"The atheist...of appeal."
What is the atheist's absolute? They are the laws of logic which were discussed previously. But as is proven, logical laws are axiomatic and can not be reversed. It's not that the atheist won't allow anything to surpass this standard. It's that he does not have the ability. These logical laws are necessarily true and can not be consistently denied. To deny them is to affirm them. Christian presuppositionalists need to realize this and stop their whining because whining is of no philosophical help.
"The ultimate...'against reason.'"
Given that the logical laws are axiomatic and necessarily true, is it any wonder that Smith is committed to them. The fact is, he has no choice. They are basic, obvious facts of reality. Just because finite creatures like humans discover their truth and make note of it in their discourse, it does not make the laws fallible and increase the likelihood of them being overturned. No matter how intelligent a person is, they can not overturn an axiom.
"Smith is...atheistic dogmatism"
Sure. It'll be a nice break from this reviewer's Christian dogmatism.
"We obviously...are intelligible" (61);
Oh my gosh, will you look at this dogmatism. Smith is actually saying that we can not accept something uncritically and that we must examine it. This line is deliberately thrown in by the reviwer in a feeble attempt to paint Smith as dogmatic. It's a good thing he didn't submit the following sentence because the reviewer would be exposed for a kook. Smith said in the next sentence that we must know what we are talking about when engaged in a philosophical discussion because we do not learn anything when we are told a 'blark' exists if we do not know what a blark is.
more to come...

Smith focuses on the supremacy of reason, and the utter idiocy of using "faith" to arrive at knowledge. A triumph of clear thinking. His chapter "The Sins of Christianity" is especially good. Check out his important collection of essays "Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies."

looking at my email address, one would easily see that i am biased here. ok, i am a concrete atheist. After years and years of searching for words to put my ideas into, i came across Smiths Atheism : A Case Against God. Voila. it is all in these pages. Hats off to a book well written. i am speechless.

BY ALBERT C. BENDER, AUTHOR OF 'YOU ARE FOREVER IN TIME'
'ATHEISM' CLEARLY AMPLIEFIED FOR ME, THIS AUTHORS KNOWLEDGE AND INTELLECT ON THE SUBJECT HE HAS WTITTEN, IT PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT TRULY MOVES TO THE CORE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER THAT THE AUTHOR SPEAKS ABOUT.
IT IS WELL WRITTEN AND THOUGHT-PROVOKING THROUGHOUT. I RECOMMEND THIS BOOK HIGHLY TO THOSE WHO'S INTEREST LIE WITHIN. A 5 STAR RATING, WITHOUT A DOUBT.

Okay, screw Ayn Rand. Smith's book is one that needs to be read by everyone that claims to be an atheist, and, hey, by plenty of theists as well. This book has it all: It identifies the myths surrounding atheism, and dismisses them. It draws the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. More importantly, it takes a philisophical viewpoint on atheism, not a scientific one. It explains why many atheists believe what they believe (or, rather, as the case is, don't believe). It's important. The one main flaw I find in this book is that the writing can sometimes be dry and may lose reader's interest if they are easily distracted. However, this book is a valuable tool in understanding atheism.

The Case Against God is a remarkably clear and informative book on atheism, in fact, one of the best books available to date. It is not a "quick fact" sort of book, but is intended to be studied. It is comprehensive and enlightening. Smith's reasoning is masterful.

Having once been a minister of the Christian faith who is now an atheist, I can see the value of a work like this. If I had only ten freethought books to take with me, this would be one of them!

Joe E. Holman

[...]

This book justifies why the concept of faith is not a cognitively acceptable means of arriving at truth, and if we make an exception only to religious faith, we have thrown out reason in it's entirety. It is very irritating when fundamentalist reviewers come on here and write reviews that do not challegnge or give any examples of how this book's arguments are "outdated and long defeated", as wrote one reviewer from Aurora Ontario. Then give us an example, which argument? First of all, this person wrote that Smith argues for Atheim in a negative sense and not in a positive sense, where in the book, the author clearly argues a positive sense of atheism-- proof that this person either did not care to read carefully, or does not write an accurate exegesis of his work at all, (and probabily did not even read the book). If you're gonna write a review, don't just show insensitivity to the work by trying to explain it away with a dry remark rather then telling us which argument you are specifically referring to.
In fact, Smith has a very sophisticated cosmological argument refutation, with a clear-cut case that shows that by taking away the existence of the natural universe as a causal primary, the result is a dropping of the context in which causality is possible. And also since matter has not been proven to appear or dissappear, but only, accumulate, change state, disintegrate, expand, or compress, we have no right to betray the existence of the universe by treating speculative claims as the truth, but which have no basis in fact. If reviewers at least show courtesy by engaging the arguments like these before giving a low star rating to the book, at least the person agues for his or her claims. This sort of fallacious lne of thought is reminiscent of Christianity's erroneous assumption that the terms obedience and morality are identical. But let me go with this line of thought and ask the Christian: 1) how is it even the slightest bit moral to obey autocratic commands from the most morally reprehensible doctrine ever- one of threats of the most vicious physical force? I don't even know why I am even offering a so much respect to these people by giving them an argument in cases like this that do not even deserve the respect and regard of my challenge.
The ongoing fallacies of the religionist are anti-reason.

I read this book a few months ago and had wanted to write a review. Better late then never as they say.

This is an excellent book and easy to read. If you believe in that supposedly all powerful ghost (you may know IT as, um, gawd) and cannot handle any doubt, stay away from this book as you will feel doubt and disComfort (in both sense of the word, right Ray, bananaman?). If you are an atheist, who always felt that atheism is TRUE, but just couldn't organize your thoughts together, then this book is for you.

The wise author Smith uses reason to demonstrate that religious dogma, especially gawd, is FALSE and based only on irrationality.

Why ASSume that there is a creator of the universe? It's more reasonable to believe that the universe always was.

If gawd is outside space and time, how can anyone have any knowledge of IT if we have no experience and knowledge outside of space and time, since we are confined within space and time?

If gawd has attributes, then IT would have limits, which would go against the idea of a gawd in the first place.

Theists cherry pick their designed and ordered objects and systems to infer a designer. They use the eye, the cell, the orbits of the solar system and what not as designed and ordered objects or systems designed by a designer, but ignore things such as pathogens, earthquakes and what not as designed and ordered objects or systems designed by a designer.

These are some of the many interesting points I was able to recall to wet your appetite for what's in store.

I'll certainly be reading it from time to time. It's a classic.

Bye, bye, gawd! Not that I've ever had belief in that. LOL! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
And may I also add, I would just love to see an acorn turn into a theologian. LOL! Ha, ha, ha, ha.

I would appreciate it if people would report on the books, and not on their personal opinions of those without theism. this was one of the most readable and enjoyable books I've read on the matter, and caused a turning point in my lack of believe when it caused me to realize that I had no need to be on the defensive, that it was not my job to validate anything, but rather the job of the people with a positive belief. Nothing I could type would cover it as well as Lawrence Louis' review, and I highly recommend scrolling down to read it. this was a book I would have gladly payed more for.

This book is an average argument against Theism and Christianity, although I agree with the authors opinions for the most part I believe his book could have been written more clearly and with less emotion. He makes great logical points like the fact that it is impossible to speak about or prove a higher being exists outside the known physical universe based on the fact that we are constrained with in its laws. He also makes a great point on using the logic of Ockham's razor, that is the most obvious thing is usually true and does not need an imaginative explanation. The book dismantled Theistic belief from a logical perspective, he did a very good job of this. I read this while I was still a Christian and it shook my faith but did not convince me to take an atheistic view. I believe an agnostic view is the best we can accomplish in this world with a strong focus on what we can know. If you are an atheist or exploring their world view this is a good book to start with.

I thoroughly enjoyed the education in logical principles Smith's book offers and if the entirety of human experience was encircled by reason I would be a devout atheist. This book, however, has not altered the fact that I feel God within. I cannot understand Him, but I know he is with me. When I tell my wife that I love her, I cannot understand the deep, passionate, rousing feeling I have for her and I cannot offer logical proofs for its existence. I simply know; I simply feel it. This is the same experience I have with God and this is why reason can never touch my faith.
Intellectually, I have no choice but to leave room for the possibility of God because I recognize the fact that the human ability to reason is limited. Not everything in our lives can be put into neat, understandable and logical categories. This does not mean that everything outside those categories must be supernatural but it definitely leaves room for the prospect that a realm inherently outside natural explanation exists. When dealing with metaphysical questions, reason goes only so far, at which point one must make a choice between the blind belief that reason is everything or the blind belief that there is something beyond its reach. Regardless of the way you go, faith is a necessity. Within Smith's own book, when he tells us that his atheism is based on "the *presumption* that the universe is everything there is", it is undeniable that his life view is based on faith. The only way to have a faith-free understanding of the world is to be infallible, which is a characteristic I'm sure no atheist would dare assume. To put it another way, since our knowledge is ultimately incomplete, the need for faith is unavoidable; it is part of the human condition.
For a very long time I found it hard to bring myself beyond faith in reason alone, until I realized that one cannot intellectualize oneself into spiritual faith. Instead of trying to find a logical proof for the existence of a one's spiritual being, one simply needs to make a conscious effort to feel it. If you simply take the time every day to clear your mind and open your spirit, God's presence in your life will become real to you. It is not easy to accomplish but much like the fulfillment felt in a loving relationship with another person, feeling God is real and well worth the struggle.

I was so intrigued by the banter going on here that I just had to buy the book. (Does well for a marketing ploy - just write a book called "Why God doesn't exist" and you'll have a best-seller).
While reading this book it struck me that the entire foundation of Smith's argument is based on rather lop-sided shaky grounds.
One such underlying view is Smith's outright denial of faith. (Smith says: "All propositions of faith, regardless of their specific content, are irrational." ... "Insofar as faith is possible, it is irrational; insofar as faith is rational, it is impossible." ... "Faith is required only for those beliefs that cannot be defended.") Many reviewers have already picked up on the absurdity of this view and have acknowledged that faith is "part of the human condition." (I hasten to add that an earlier reviewer's comment that many of the reviews are "hysterical and incoherent" is overwhelmingly unjustified).
Smith cannot deny that he possesses faith. He has faith that we are here by blind chance. He has faith that God does not exist. According to Smith's own criteria (that all propositions of faith are irrational), his beliefs are "impossible" and "irrational".
Secondly, Smith holds that only people who have faith in God are in the position to "prove" what they believe. He says "If evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed." The atheist on the other hand, does not have to "prove" anything - including the non-existence of God.
If Smith insists on adhering to such childish attitudes, then I have a "proposition" to make. To keep it objective, lets go with science. (If my proposition were my personal experiences of gaining inner-strength, a sense of completeness, spiritual fulfilment and positive experiences - all of which are sufficient "proof" to myself that God exists, then Smith would no doubt shun my propositions as being "irrational". So let's keep it objective).
Firstly, I'll explain what science has got to tell us, then I'll cover Smith's muddled notion that people "cannot know God". We cannot escape the fact that whatever caused the Universe, it happened to give rise to a coherent, intelligible, mathematically ordered cosmos. The laws of nature are not only significant, but they are deeply profound. (The dictionary definition of 'profound' is "intellectually deep; learned; depth of place; knowledge; skill").
Physical particles conform to precise, coherent mathematical relationships and profound laws. If the nature of particles were really random and purposeless, then to kick a football (in a hypothetical situation) would be completely unpredictable. It may stick to your foot, or it may shoot sideways, or the ball might divide into a million pieces - with no way of preventing it. All matter in the Universe would be in a state of absolute chaos. But our cosmos posses natural laws with the potential for matter to give rise to something as unprecedented as the human brain! (which is the most complicated and wondrous piece of equipment known to man). And even more phenomenal - consciousness.
A set of coherent ideas and probabilities would NOT have existed if nothing existed before the Universe. (How could they exist? If nothing existed before the Universe existed, then nothing would exist now). However, such a set of ideas and laws might have existed in the consciousness of a spiritual Creator.
These immutable "laws of nature" form the very fabric of the material Universe, (they even form the fabric of an infinitely existing Universe - for people who naively ignore scientific evidence of the Big Bang). So my proposition to Smith is clear: If a cosmos such as ours is to exist at all, then it would require an ordering intelligent 'mathematician' to set up the physical correlation in the required way. If anyone proposes that a blind, purposeless force can give rise to such a cosmos, then their argument must be labelled as "irrational".
Once it is objectively established that the existence of a higher intelligent being is massively probable (FAR MORE PROBABLE than His non-existence), it is the prerogative of the individual to spiritually SEARCH for Him and discover Him through FAITH. The Christian view of God is not that of an old man sitting on a cloud (in the way the sun is related to the earth). Rather God is as one with His creation, He transcends it yet is active within it.
God is a spiritual Being who cannot fail to exist. He can be spiritually 'tapped' into through prayer and meditation, (The "Ground of all Being", the "Universal Consciousness", the "essence of God" are all different labels for the same thing). For Smith to categorically assert that a person "cannot know the Christian God" reveals a spiritual bankruptcy to the highest degree.
The spiritual search is what it's all about. The entire foundation of Smith's book is based on empty grounds.
It is important to be aware that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has been revealed to fall short of explaining reality. Evolution exists - there is no doubt about that. (To say "I don't believe in evolution" is like saying "I don't believe in gravity"). However, Charles Darwin claimed that his theory of natural selection properly explains how a primordial 'soup' could give rise to human beings via completely natural processes alone. His theory therefore undermined the belief that humanity was born by the creative intentions of a divine Being. However, 150 years after Darwin's theory had been generally accepted as "truth" by the popular mind, the mechanisms of natural selection are now being revealed to be "unworthy of credit." Numerous books are available on the issue - 'Evolution, A Theory in Crisis' by Michael Denton, 'Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds' by Philip Johnson, and the unprecedented 'Not By Chance' by Lee M. Spetner are all worth reading.
When the facts of human existence and spirituality are analysed deeply, atheism makes little sense at all.

This is a great book of reference for any one interested in a logical breakdown of the "God" concept. I've read many of the negative reviews and as always these fundamentalists make no sense. Being a Mathematician and a Professor of Philosophy it is very easy to see that fundamentally believing in a "God" concept is without intellectual merit to a most volumous decree. In life as in Mathematics there are rarely any 100% absolute certainties, but as Mr. Smith explains, because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean it won't ever come to light, and people very often make up fantastic stories to give them solace and peace of mind. The proof of a "God" concept also is not 100% certain and therefore open to examination. Who knows maybe it will be proved one day, but until then one must accept things i.e., evolution, chaos, string theory all based on certain degrees of certainty. Mr. Smith merely asks what is the degree of certainty of the "God" concept? When Mr. Smith states "clearly" one must only read on to understand "clearly," as it is very "clearly" explained. If we were in a court of law then I suppose terminology would make a difference, yet Mr. Smith is only applying logic to an otheriwise illogical stance from fundamentalists.

If you've actually been encouraged to think critically about your religious beliefs (as opposed fearing what the benevolent dictator will do to you if you do) or you want to sharpen your philosophical claws, this is the book to read. Smith basic position is that unless you can demonstrate that there is a god, the rest of the Christian arguments are red herrings. I've read this book twice and plan to read it again and again. It's helped me formulate strong rebuttals against the type of arguments that Christians are prone to rely on in their unconvincing attempts to convince you that there actually is a god.

This book is recommended to all believers and non-believers in God. I always thought that any belief worth having must survive reasonable doubt. Smith demonstrates that the God of Christianity is not only unknowable, but his very nature is impossible. Smith then goes on to demolish the idea of faith as a means of reaching truth, defends reason as the fundamental requirement and exposes the major flaws in the basic theistic arguments.

I doubt that there is any escape from his logical arguments, nothing can save the Christian God now. Any attack on the atheistic case is an attack on reason and sanity.

All George H.Smith does is define Atheism, as that which has no knowledge of God, He does not claim that Atheist need TO KNOW THAT GOD EXIST. At any rate, his use of term Atheism, fits the definition of Agnosticism perfectly.
The second thing that Smith does is that he does not present any arguments against God. He simply finds the telological, cosmological, and other arguments not sufficent. Then he says once he has done that, you can call yourself an Atheist.
In response to the arguments the author presents to the reader to options to the existence of God.
1. That of an eternal universe. 2. Or the infinte regression of Bertrand Russell.
If you can debunk these two explanations, then Smith's book will crumble.
On page 241 he makes this statement in regards of dismissing the First Cause argument:
"A casual primary, on the other hand, is the metaphysical basis for the concept of casuality. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE EXPLANATION, BECAUSE IT MAKES EXPLANATION POSSIBLE...Existence, the casual primary, is presupposed by all casual processes."
What is casual primary? In all my years in studying philosophy, Iv'e never heard of such a term. It would be quite interesting if we were to replace the word "casual primary" with the word "God".... A rose by another name if you ask me.
The next chapter I has problems with was Chapter 12. "the sins of Christianity." How can you have Sin (or absolute morals) in a Atheistic worldview? You need an infinte refreence point to determine what is right and wrond, in the absolute sense.
The other interesting chapter is "revelation", chapter 7. which attacks the Bible uses of types. In the Book of Hebrews it uses the type of Issac and Abrham in regards to Jesus' and the Father. I see no problem in this.
The next thing that he does in the chapter 12(pp.317-19) about Jesus' presenting "new morals". Those spoken in Matthew 5. Jesus' here never said that he was presenting anything contrary to the Old Testament. Nor, did he present anything new. Smith thinks that because he has found such ethics in the Old Testament, make "Jesus did not devaite from traditionaly Judaism as much as the Gospel wrtiers would simetimes like us to believe (p.319)." The point here is that they WEREN'T. The Jews of Jesus' day were misusing the Old testament, and making voi the word of God by their tradition, and He was correcting them. I think Smith is going to have to find better evidence against Jesus' then this. It comes from his own lack of understanding the Bible.
Robert

This book does a good job in showing the case against God. Whether that case is strong enough to deter theists is another matter. Either way, from a theistic point of view, atheism is like the teenage `angst' phase in the growth of the human race. It lashes out, rebels against popular ideas, and tries to find its identity. This is natural and to be expected, and is not a bad thing. But as shown in the Jesus' parable of the prodigal son, it will be a matter of time (maybe centuries), when humanity will finally mature, reflect, and return to theism - our Father in Heaven - who patiently waits with open arms, and forgives us for our misguided ways.
Smith's work is significant, as it reflects a necessary stage of our growth. But for a more mature outlook on life, we can turn to books like `Conversations With God Book 1' by Neale Donald Walsch, or `A Return to Love' by Marianne Williamson.

Unlike some of the reviewers who give Smith's work only one star, I am a convinced atheist. I also hold a Ph.D. in philosophy and readng philosophical literature on religion is a major interest of mine. While I am convincerd that the weight of the evidence is against God's existence, I find most of Smith's arguments dogmatic and subject to decisive objections. There are many excellent defenses of atheism out there--Doug Krueger's _What is Atheism? An Introduction_ and J.L. Mackie's _The Miracle of Theism_ are examples. If you are interested in the subject, look to one of them, not to Smith.--Greg Klebanoff

People of faith will feel great discomfort with this book but will be unable to defeat it's logic and hence, its conclusions. This book forces one to think about one's most dearly held views of God. It was excellent.

People of faith will feel great discomfort with this book but will be unable to defeat it's logic and hence, its conclusions. This book forces one to think about one's most dearly held views of God. It was excellent.

Chapters 2 and 3 alone completely dismantle the Christian god concept. The rest of the book is much more thorough than popular treatments by Dawkins and others..going into great detail on various topics related to philosophy and theology. In my opinion, this is the "go to" book for anyone interested in atheism. Highly recommended.

I love this book. Whatever your background, don't be quick to dismiss this book, it really does explain atheism pretty well, and its one of the best that I've seen of its kind. I used to be a xtian, then after seeing what xtianity is really about, I deconverted a few years ago. Its the best decision that I've ever made. Now I'm a skeptic and realist and my life's been better ever since I've let go of xtianity and supernatural beliefs. But I've only recently discovered this book and it really confirmed my thoughts on what I already thought about religion.

Just a well written book. It totally destroys the theists at their very root by showing how they can't even define the word god and takes it from there. It also then goes on to make the destinction between reason and faith clear as possible to avoid any confusion that the Christian might use to his advantage. Don't be suprised if Christains give this book a one or two, Smith leaves them no room with which to pull off equavocations by making sure to keep precise definitions. Many will call Smith's style dogmatic... totally ignoring what the word means. However Smith's style is just confident...and honest, if not too kind to a belief system that has failed to come up with one shred of evidence to support itself in 2000 years.

"How can...and evil?"
Essence and nature are synonymous. Essence goes hand in hand with existence and the existence of essences can not be denied without contradiction. Regarding consciousness, this reviewer begs the question by assuming consciousness is not a purely natural, material phenomenon. All one can do is simply see that it exists and accept it; they can not attach any theistic presuppositions to it. Regarding justice and evil, this reviwer assumes God decides what is just and moral but this leads back to the divine command/divine privilge approach to ethics I talked about earlier and showed to be problematic. There is no need to repeat myself here.
"In short...as well."
Obvious Christian presuppositionalist rhetoric. First of all, Smith is not depending on Christianity for anything. He simply starts with logical axioms and proceeds with his epistemic and metaphysical investigations from there. By claiming that Smith can not make knowledge claims without allegedly depending on Christianity for logical laws, the reviewer could be criticized for begging the question about the origin of logical laws. In fact, I am not even sure they had an origin. A theist may say they did with God, but by saying this, he implicitly affirms the truth of the law of identity even when there was only God and I have explained this further in my review elsewhere.
This Christian presuppositionalist labeled Smith a dogmatist yet he was a dogmatist himself. I would be tempted to call that hypocrisy but that would imply Smith actually is a dogmatist in the way the reviewer accused him of, but as is evident, these accuations totally fail. One final point is that throughout his reviw, this reviwer uses the word omniscience as meaning to know everything. Smith shows in his book that this characteristic of having unverified, automatic knowledge is unintelligible and plunges us into agnosticism. Anyway, the omnimax God has been shown by philosophers to be incoherent. Something that is incoherent has no place in a discourse where intelligible things are being spoken of.

PLEASE WRITE A REVIEW ONLY IF YOU'VE READ THE BOOK!
It seems many reviewers haven't done their homework. At best I see one or two quotes from Smith's book which are generally secondary arguments and are chronically made out of context.
To defend the standpoint of the atheist, Smith need not answer the question "Is the universe eternal" or any of these other off-topic questions raised in earlier reviews. Please consult your local cosmologist for opinions on that subject matter.
Smith's argument is plain and simple. Forget everything you've learned on the subject of theism (to remove bias and address the issue objectively). Now let the theist propose his theory of God. Evaluate each line of argument posited by the theist. Smith identifies the logical flaws, inconsistencies, and unclear definitions in the theist's arguments. His conclusion is that if the theist can't convince you, using logic and evidence, of the existence of a God, then if you accept the existence of God, you are doing so irrationally. Atheism then stands as the rational alternative, equivalent to saying to the theist "You have not convinced me that 'God' exists." ATHEISM IS NOT A PROOF THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. INSTEAD IT IS THE ASSERTION THAT THEISM DOES NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
Many of the reviewers of this book have missed this very critical and highly essential pillar of the book, and have instead chosen to attack less important issues or formulate overly-simplistic proofs of why God HAS to exist. Had they actually read the book, they would have found that many of these arguments are addressed.
This book will do you no good if you thumb through it and pick out a line or two from a page in the middle and then scoff at it. Like I said earlier, you have to eliminate all your bias on the subject and allow the theist a chance to persuade you to his beliefs. If he doesn't succeed at proving the existence of God, then welcome to atheism. Let Smith's book guide you through the theist's arguments and help you avoid the logical pitfalls and philosophical illusions contained therein.

I don't actually have anything to say that hasn't already been repeated several times over by those below me. I give this book 4 stars instead of 5 because it isn't as detailed as I'd prefer (true, it wasn't meant to be very detailed) and because certain parts of it are out of date (chiefly parts in the latter portion of the book where he makes use of history and science.)

Every time I have asked a Christian "What proof is there that your god exists?" I get the same answer... "The Bible". First off The New Testament was written some 40 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified. Secondly, historically what was going on at the time (Rome doing ALL that it could to totaly destroy their opposition...the Gnostics) had a HUGE hand in what was placed in "The Bible". Just do some simple research on what The Vatican decides to be holy and what is heresy. You'll only see the things that propagate their cult...anything that goes against it is heresy.

Imagine that a world war occurs and that all books are burned except "The Lord of The Rings". A thousand years later when people emerge from their underground bunkers and find TLOTR they accept it as fact. Next thing they do is go searching for Mordor to find the Ring.

As for the book (ahem...) very well argued and simply brilliant!

Its been a couple of years since I read ATHEISM: THE CASE AGAINST GOD (ATCAG). It made a great impression on my philosophical development. At first, I thought the book was systematic and thorough, leaving no stone unturned. Several days ago I saw it while at a bookstore and read a few passages. Smith is extremely dogmatic defining words in a manner that has a polarizing effect. 'Reason' and 'faith' (the f-word) are good examples. Reason is the god-word. It's all encompassing and infallible. 'Faith' is defined as being irrational. Smith constructs strawman after strawman and topples them with the greatest ease.
The tone reads as though its pointless. Why bother even dismissing something so obviously false?
I'm an atheist, but have encountered better articles. I also have a bit of a problem with Smith referring to Ayn Rand and Nathaneil Branden as though their experts on the subject. The book's epistemology (theory of knowledge) is "objectivist" throughout. A theist can attack Smith's 18th century philosophy (mad dog empiricsm) and make a decent case for why ATCAG fails.
Now to address a previous review...
The anthropocentric principle is not really taken seriously by any philosophers today. In a radio interview Smith even reccomends Dawkins' wonderful book THE BLINDWATCHMAKER as thorough case against the teleology argument.
The anthropocentric argument misunderstands statistics. Its also inexcusably arbitrary. Why must it be the anthropocentric argument? That's speciest (obviously). Why not the entomological argument (that is, insects.)? After all, insects are the most successful organism known. The late Carl Sagan mockingly offered the ligthic (spelling is probably wrong), which is rocks. The universe seems well "designed" to turn out rocks.
There was an article not long ago in REASON magazine (Smih used to write for it, coincidentially). It addresses the anthropocentric principle in an article called, "God is in the details" or something like that.
Two years ago I would have probably given this book five stars. Other decent arguments agains God can be found in Russell's classic WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN and Michael Martin's ATHEISM: A PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION.

This is a good book which argues the idea of faith and god very thoroughly and logically. I believe in God and when I read this book, I tried on my own to counter each of his arguments against God, but found that I couldn't. He thorougly demolished any argument you could have to believe in God. I still believe in God, but as Smith might say, I do so irrationally. Everyone, even religious people, should read this book with an open mind and see how their beliefs hold up!

The remarkable thing about G.H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God is that this unassuming paperback may well be one of the most important and definitive philosophical texts ever written. Read the book cover to cover and see for yourselves that I am not exaggerating. In my opinion, centuries from now this book will be studied in schools and colleges worldwide and Smith himself will have joined the ranks of Hobbes, Payne, Hume and Bertrand Russell. That is centuries from now... What we have meanwhile, however, is an easily readable but highly academic book that accomplishes nothing less than a complete demolition of every argument for the existence of God (or a god) ever advanced, including some very serious ones by really heavyweight thinkers. One effect that the book will likely have is to make you want to enroll in a graduate program in philosophy as soon as possible. It very nearly lead me to doing so (personal circumstances got in the way). The only criticism of the book from the theist camp that I have heard have been angry personal attacks, while the only thing atheists at times complain about is Smith's emphasis on "negative atheism". I feel too humble and unqualified to summarize the book here, but I will give a brief explanation of "negative" atheism, for it is ultimately the key to Smith's success (see my review of J. Baggini's Atheism: A Very Short Introduction for more details).
Many atheists use the "positive" definition of atheism as the belief that there is no God. In contrast, Smith defines it as a lack of belief that there is God. This, Smith argues, is the semantically correct meaning of Atheism, "no theism", or "no belief in God". The positive approach, if I may be allowed to coin a term, should more properly be called Anti-Theism. The difference between the two approaches is subtle, but nonetheless crucial. For the postive defintion leaves a window open for the theist to accuse the atheist of making the same kind of a leap of faith that the theist himself is being accused of. Smith's definition, on the other hand, places the burden of definition, explanation, and proof squarely on the theist. While this sounds at first like an exercise in sophistry, it is not. To claim that there is no God, would first of all imply that we know what "God" means. Do we? People are born without any conception of a god, and most certainly also without any knowledge of Judeo-Chrstian scriptures and doctrines. If they were not indoctrinated later in life, they would stay that way. If a theist wishes to bring us out of this natural state and lead us to a belief in a god, he or she has a lot of explaining and justifcation to do. We do not know what the theist is talking about. He cannot just come up to us in the street, start throwing words at us and expect us to argue with him over their existence. First he or she must define what it is they are talking about, and then they must provide evidence why what they say is true. If they fail, argues Smith, atheist has no choice but to remain an atheist. As a consequence of this approach, there is no such thing as an agnostic, all agnostics being either closet theists or closet atheists. For, it's not sufficient to say "I don't know if there is God", - one necessarily must add "But I believe there is", or "but I do not believe there is".
Now, if we respond to the theists by claiming "There is no God", that would imply that we know what they mean by God, and we just happen to think that that which they mean does not physically happen to exist. However, any philosophicaly trained scholar will confirm (and Smith demonstrates this exhuastively in the book) that we are far from making even the slightest logical sense of various theistic definitions of God. Therefore, the proper response must be to demand that the theist define what he means first. Once he has done so, we may shift into a "postive" mode and argue that there is no God, provided that by God we mean exactly what our particular theist means. I personally am of a conviction that any theistic belief ever formulated is necessarily of one of the three types: 1. Something that is well defined but cannot exist in nature as we know it 2. Something that is not coherently defined 3. Something that is coherently defined and could possibly exist, but is thus far unsupported by evidence, and/or does not deserve to be worshipped or called God. I call the first type a Santa Claus type belief (while a reasonably coherent concept, its existence would contradict everything we know about the physical world, in particular the well established inability of a person to visit millions of households all over the world in a single night). The second type of belief I like to call a "square circle" type (the concept is not coherently defined and is a contradiction to itself). Tne third type of belief is a UFO-type (it could possibly exist, but all the evidence has so far been unreliable or anecdotal, so we do not believe it exists, but will not make a claim that it DOESN'T exist, instead we will keep our minds open until further more reliable evidence presents itself).
Theistic examples of the above types of belief are:
1. Santa Claus type: God is defined much like in ancient religions, a bearded old mean enthroned in the clouds who makes thunder and lightning when he is angry at his human subjects. If we are presented with this kind of definition, then a positive approach becomes valid and we may make a definite statement that there is no God if that is in fact the definition. For the existence of such a God would violate everything that the huge body of our sciences have taught us.
2. Square Circle type: This type actually encompasses most of the modern definitions of an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, omnibenevolent, infinite, unlimited, First Cause, Ultimate Designer kind of deity. I do not wish to delve into technical details here, and Smith's book does a superb job explaining why such definitions are non-sensical and of a "square circle" variety. Here too, confronted with such definitions we can demonstrate their incoherency and make a positive claim that such a God does not exist.
3. UFO-type: this one can be actually UFO-related, let's say a claim that God is a natural creature, just extremely powerful and vastly more intelligent than ourselves, who has created life on Earth via an ingenious fit of bioengineering. Because such a definition does not entail anything supernatural and is logically possible, we can't really claim with certainty that such a god does not exist. All we can say is that there is no evidence to support such a picture, and that such a "space alien" God hardly deserves to be worshipped or assigned any moral authority. Just because something is smarter or more powerful, or is even credited with our creation, it does not follow that it is good or that we should do what it commands.
There is plenty more in the book than just a simple classification like the one above. Smith methodically dismantles every theistic argument ever advanced, from those by great thinkers like Augustine and Acquinas, to amateur ramblings like "everything has a cause" or "the Universe is too perfect".
My only slight dissatisfaction with the book is that it does not cover ethics very extensively. But that would have been a whole separate volume. Besides, there is already another definitive text offering the final word on the subject: Ethics Without God by Kai Nielsen. Together, these two works present a challenge to most theists that is altogether too much to handle.
Will the book convert a devout believer to atheism? Probably not, at least not the most fanatical types. I do think the book requires the reader to possess a good college education (it can be understood by anyone, but perhaps not appreciated with necessary depth). But it will go a long way towards opening the minds of those believers with advanced technical, humanitarian and medical degrees who claim so often that there is no conflict between reason and faith. And to atheists, the book will be invaluable in providing a systematic philosophically rigorous reference. I do know one thing: the few believers that I know who have read the book have been unable to counter a single argument in it, being always ultmately reduced to feeble babbling along the lines of "I know what God means to ME! I may not be able to explain or define it, but deep down I know". Fine. But that is just a report on his or her psychological state. It doesn't give them the right to bend others to their view, to affect public policy through their elected representatives or to mess with school curricula. And that's just where I want them, babbling feebly and reporting on their mental state.

This is the book Madalyn Murray O'Hair wished that she had written.
Excellent work. A highly recommended source of logical arguments against the existence of god. Smith proves that the idea of 'god' is so absurd and full of self-contradiction, that it can not possibly be true. After reading the book, one can not help but conclude that allowing that there might be a god is an example of "empty mindedness", not "open mindedness".
[...]

What I like about the book is that the language flows so well in definition of its premise. This premise has always been very difficult to convey convincingly. George demonstrates the natural process of advancing life which seems to come from a God in the eyes of most humans. Many arguments yes I agree, but this book is one of the best out right now which stresses its point very intelligently. I suggest a very good book which has a surprising premise on this same subject, SB: 1 or God by Karl Mark Maddox.

I READ THIS BOOK FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 1996 & HAVE JUST FINISHED REREADING IT(3/08/08). DEFINITELY ONE OF IF NOT MY FAVORITE WORKS ON THE SUBJECT OF ATHEISM. SMITH REFRESHINGLY LACKS THE BITTER DISAPPOINTED POLEMIC TONE OF MANY AUTHORS WHO ARE FORMER RELIGIONISTS-JOSEPH WHELESS COMES TO MIND MOST PARTICULARLY IN THIS REGARD. SMITH DEFTLY DEMOLISHES NOT ONLY THE SUPPORTIVE ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE EXISTANCE OF GOD BUT ALSO THE ALLEGED POSITIVE SOCIAL FUNCTIONS OF RELIGIOUS SUPERNATURAL BELIEF. SAM HARRIS IN "THE END OF FAITH" DEVELOPES THIS THEME EVEN FURTHER. MY ONLY SMALL CRITICISM WOULD BE WITH HIS STRAW MAN DIALOG WITH A "SKEPTIC". HIS DEFINITION OF SKEPTICISM IS IDIOSYNCRATIC & NARROW-IE AS ONE WHO DOUBTS EVEN HIS SENSORY APPARATUS. I'D RECOMMEND THIS VOLUME TO ALL STUDENTS OF THE SUBJECT. GREAT READ.

The title says it all. If you only have time to read one book on atheism, this is the book to read. It covers everything in a very accessible style and only occasionally loses its patience with a very difficult topic.

This book does a great job of showing the rational arguments against theism. Theism is quickly becoming a plague on our society by suppressing free-thought and advancement in the sciences and education. Smith gives us a great reference for arguments against the myth of a supreme being. This is a great book to arm yourself with rational argument against the theocracy that thinks it has a right to control us all.

One "reader's" comments summed up the debate Smith alludes to; "You should be reading the Bible and not asking questions."

Fortunately, there are enough of us who keep asking questions that others benefit from our doubts. Virtually all of the positive advance of mankind have come in the face of opposition from those that don't like questions that may undermine their comfortable vbeliefs. Smith dares the reader to begin with the assumption that there is no God and try to convince oneself otherwise. Of course, readers on both sides of the arguement have a hard time making the leap of faith (or lack thereof).

It is of course the use of the word "Atheist" in the title that elicits the usual indignant, and unthoughtful, responses against the book. I consider myself an agnostic when it comes to the existance of a god. But I am clearly an atheist when it comes to believing in a vindictive, demanding-of-worship, "Abraham kill me a son" creator of rules that organized religions have invented.

Smith fails to give enough emphasis in this book to the positive influence that theism can have. The New Testament does provide a useful code for living if one sticks to the actual quotes attributed to Jesus. Unfortunately, most "Christians" are too busy defending a pre-Christ text to live up to their namesake. The Koran is also a source for the positive, except for those who try to use it as a rulebook to judge others.

Still the best critique of belief in God ever published. Smith demonstrates very comprehensively that just as a square circle cannot exist, nor can God. His success is demonstrated in that an attempt to demolish his argument would require the same irrational line of thinking required to believe that there IS a God.

I like the review that states "creation of a single cell is impossible" (or something like that) but GOD is real! What in the hell is that? Just the simple statement is ludicris. Just because you were stupid enough to believe that there is an imaginary man in the sky watching you all the time and he knows if your're doing right or wrong and you will have to answer to him,don't think the rest of the world is as gullable and stupid as you are! What's the difference between god and Santa? To a christian the difference is GOD IS REAL! To all others who have enough intelligence and common sense there is no difference. Tell me do you believe in Santa?

Those reviewers lambasting Smith for his illogic are themselves revealed as illogic personified! Every argument is logical and persuasive; I cannot recommend this book enough. I thoroughly enjoyed Smith's often candid style. This is a must read for theists and atheists alike! Although the honest theist may not be one after reading this! :-).

I read this during my transition phase. It really makes you think and clearly demonstrates why there are doubts for the existence of the (Christian) God. It gives solid rebuttals to several supposed arguments for God. This book by itself probably won't persuade you one way or the other, but it will challenge your beliefs and adds to the "debate" in a civil way.

If you read this book as a theist and finish it as a theist, than you need to get your head examined. This is the most fool-proof, systematic, well presented case against the concept of a 'god'. No stone is left unturned, no counter-argument is left unanalyzed. The book is pure and simple, straight to the point and doesn't b.s you at all.

Read it.

I recently re-read Atheism: The Case Against God by George Smith after glancing at some of the reviews posted on the store. In the book Smith advocates the atheistic position and attempts to eliminate theism (particularly Christianity) as a rational intellectual option.

I should say at the outset that from my perspective the theism/atheism debate is an important and fascinating topic that warrants examination. Additionally, I think that informed and thoughtful people can hold positions on either side of this issue. This book, however, does not address the topic in an open and honest manner but rather in a skewed and vitriolic fashion (It has been experience that many self-described free thinkers such as Mr. Smith are, in fact, extremely dogmatic).

Aside from the poor scholarship, I was disappointed in Smith's angry tone. His bias and errors are manifest throughout the text - a comprehensive diagnostic of them is well beyond the scope of this review. For example, when addressing the so-called cosmological argument for God's existence Smith formulates the argument incorrectly (stating that everything that exists requires a cause rather than everything than began to exist - a subtle yet significant difference). While with respect to physics he offers a clearly incorrect understanding of entrophy/thermodynamics. One reader has highlighted a link that discusses many of Smith's errors in greater detail ([...] The site appears to be from a Christian perspective, however, many of its comments are valid independant of one's belief system.

There are many good works in this area, which better articulate both the atheistic and theistic arguments. For a starting point I would suggest a debate/discussion format which allows each side to put forward their own arguments. In this genre I suggest God: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist by Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong as starting point (Armstrong makes the strongest argument for atheism I have heard - be forewarned, however, that Craig also makes a compelling case for theism. For a representation of only the atheistic position Mackie's "The Miricle of Theism" is amoung the best.

Avoid this one - its silly and angry.

I'd be embarrassed for anyone to convert to atheism after this reading. This book has only served to reinforce theistic reason, not faith as Smith would argue (pg.172), in the Biblical Christian God and reformed theology.

Smith starts the book exploring the scope of atheism. In doing so, he makes the bizarre comment, "unless the theist happens to be an ardent follower of Calvin, he will recognize his sweeping moral disapproval of atheism for what it is: nonsense." pg.15 Honestly, I don't know what an atheist would have to gain by conceding that the reformed theist has all merit to condemn atheism as immoral.

The second chapter, Smith ends admitting two basic alternatives for theists in their understanding of God:
1- the Theist abandons his defense of a supernatural being altogether.
2- the Theist can continue to proclaim the existence of a supernatural being-while arguing that this being is knowable, at least to some extent by human mind.
Obviously, the 2nd option is adopted by Christians were Smith then proceeds to make a case against option 2.

Chp 3- Smith laments on the incomprehension of God. Yes, God is ultimately incomprehensible to us, scripture supports this notion, psalm 145:3 "Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable." (ESV)
Other scripture to confirm this? Isa. 55:8-9, Rom. 11:33, Ps. 139:6
This is only logical, as God is infinite and humans are finite. However, the author fails to note that God reveals himself to humanity in ways we can comprehend, namely in Jesus Christ, Col. 1:15. Furthermore, God has revealed himself to us but has withheld some information about his character, Deut. 29:29. It's foolish to argue that God, being infinite, is somehow incapable of demonstrating his character to us through our natural senses.

pg 73, one of my favorites, Smith mentions the divine election of God to save a portion of humanity from Hell, the doctrine of predestination. Smith is quick to namedrop Calvin, well known for his emphasis on the sovereignty of God through his masterwork, The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Smith demonstrates much confusion over this doctrine though, raising questions "Why does God create men only to save some arbitrarily, and damn others?" (Answered by Romans 9:21-23) and "Why does the Christian brother bother to proselytize, since men cannot help what they believe anyway?" (Answered by Romans 10:14-17.) Smith then sheepishly asserts that the "problems...of predestination" are "unsolvable".

Pg. 74, "Paul makes no attempt to defend God from the charge of unfairness"
Unfairness? Who said life was fair? God owes humanity nothing b/c humanity is worth nothing apart from God,
Daniel 4:35, "All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?""

Chp 4 - Smith attacks liberal Christians for their hypocrisy in denying the fundamental doctrines that identify Christianity. pg. 117, "we must wonder how the liberal Christian differs from the non-Christian." and "interpretation, in the hands of the modern liberal, simply distorts Christianity into a grotesque form". Smith later contends, "the fundamentalist, at least comes to grips with the problem of atheism, for from an atheistic viewpoint, the accuracy of the Bible is the only relevant consideration. If the Bible is true, so is Christianity. If the Bible cannot withstand critical examination, neither can Christianity." pg. 196.

Throughout the book, Smith is quick to defend the volitional capabilities of humans, however, he offers no support for this superstitious belief. Hypocritically, Smith is quick to attack the Theist for believing in God despite evidence the Christian provides, the cosmological argument, which Smith addresses by stating in pg 241, "The universe, then, has always existed and always will exist." Most are probably well aware at the vastly unpopular position Smith takes in his attempt to refute the Christian. Although modern science rejects the assertions of Smith, he simply deems it unnecessary to provide any scientific insight to support his irrational viewpoint in his stubborn attempt to uphold atheism.

In the end, Smith finds himself in a contradictory state. He refuses to abandon his beliefs in evil or morality and free will maintaining they exist in a purely naturalist, cause and effect reality.

4-stars because the book is actually an impressive feat in the realm of atheist debate literature. Many uniformed Christians (or simply non-Christians who mistake themselves for being Christian) probably will be challenged by this book. For atheists, you'll probably cherish this book for its plethora of bizarre, sometimes irrational, other times inventive/creative defenses for atheism.

Before reading this book I was an agnostic-atheist. But after reading I have reaffirmed my total stance as an athiest. It's logical distruction of faith, leaves me in reaffrimation that someone else but me has the same thoughts. I applaud George H. Smith for making a book so direct. I only wish more people would read this book and discover it's truths.

Thomas Kuhn has argued that adherents to scientific paradigms can be treated be treated as "language groups." People from different paradigms have difficulty talking to each other because they see the world in radically different ways. An Aristotelian looking at a swinging stone sees "a constrained fall." A Newtonian looking at the same phenomenon sees a pendulum. These paradigms are in many ways incommensurable, since the members of each group interpret the same data in such completely different ways.
In the same way, theists & atheists "see" the world in dramatically different terms. Therefore, it may be unfair to criticize Smith's book from a theistic perspective. Instead, I will evaluate him in terms of his own assumptions.
And so, we look for Smith's standard. He writes:
"To qualify as knowledge ... a belief must be justified; it must warrant acceptance by rational standards. If a belief meets the requirements of these standards, it is a rational belief; if a belief cannot meet the requirements - but is adopted nonetheless - it is an irrational belief. ...For the present discussion, we may indicate three minimum requirements that must be fulfilled before any belief can claim the status of knowledge: (a) a belief must be based on evidence; (b) a belief must be internally consistent...; (c) a belief cannot contradict previously validated knowledge with which it is to be integrated. If a belief fails to meet any or all of these criteria, it cannot properly be designated as knowledge."
Smith's criteria appear to be fairly common sense - at first glance. A more rigorous approach, however, is required.
Smith is stating a belief about the proper standard of justification: that beliefs should be based on evidence. However, Smith's belief is not based on evidence, nor can it be based on evidence.
Facts are not self-interpreting; they require an evaluative framework. But it is precisely Smith's evaluative framework which is up for evaluation. So his argument would beg the question. Worse, no amount of evidence would ever suffice to say "you need evidence to justify a belief." Epistemological claims simply cannot be proven in that fashion.
So, Smith's belief fails by the first prong of his standard. And the second prong of his standard forbids self-contradiction. So he actually fails two of his three standards. In fact, I suspect the only reason that his standard doesn't fail all three of its own criteria is that this claim is the epistemological starting point of his framework.
Smith's criteria, I should note, are not idiosyncratic. Numerous philosophers adopt standards with a similar flavor. The above criticism, however, invalidates all empiricist philosophies from positivism to Epicureanism to Objectivism.
All of Smith's arguments against the existence of God are unsound, since they are all built on a shaky foundation.

This is not a careful work. In the end, it will only convince those already well on the way to atheism. It ignores most of the major work in philosophy of religion going on in the world today. . . seems ignorant of it really. . . but after all it is a pop exploration of a tough topic. As such I sympathize with the limitations. . . if you are adverse to tough books in the field, this is a good place to start.

This book should be in every library. Many people I know had already read it and all had recommended it, and now I will also. I have noticed it used as a reference in other books. It intelligently, factually and logically, answers many questions of truth seeking persons. The general reader will find it non-technical enough to read.

Don't lose track of the basic points that are made in the first few chapters as they are the foundation for the rest of the argument. Overall, it is very good and well written, similar to Darwin's Origin of Species in it's plain-spoken modesty. However, it is also replete with cutting criticisms of illogical behavior and irrational thought. I would recommend this to atheists and theists alike.

This Book is one of the best I have ever read

Atheism: The Case Against god is a serious study and analysis to question beliefs and the structure of Theism and Agnosticism which are in fact the result of human mind creativity, fear and imagination.

The Case Against God is one of the best books I have read about atheism. It systematically forces the theist to give up each of his arguments or face total irrationality. A few points were overemphasized in the book, but overall The Case Against God is accurate, germane, and convincing.

Imagine Lucy Van Pelt arguing with Charlie Brown about why there can’t be more than two dimensions, why their comic strip world has always existed and was not drawn, and why an animator named Charles Schulz cannot be real, and you have a fair summary of what you will find in this philosophically inept book. I rate it three stars solely for entertainment value.
As a self styled philosopher who has studied many aspects of metaphysics, belief systems and life philosophies in general, “the case for atheism” made me laugh. If you are looking for guidance on whether or not to purchase and read this book, know this: the book will probably not do much more than reflect the beliefs you already have. If you believe in God, you will see the huge, gaping holes in Smith’s arguments, and you will either be amused or angered by his personal vendetta against Christianity (I was amused). However, if you are an atheist or a fence sitter who has grown up in an oppressive religious environment and want to get out, then you will see this book as a temporary key to freedom from the doubts or struggles you have had and a blessing of autonomy, and you will be grateful to Smith for intellectually legitimizing your desires.
When it gets right down to it, these arguments are grade school level. He makes so many false assumptions and relies so heavily on semantics and straw men that trying to point out the nonsense points would be like stomping cockroaches in a filth ridden house- there are too many to count. During my junior year in college I was overjoyed when I came across this book, thinking it would give me some heavy roadblocks of opposing thought to sink my teeth into, and really shake my foundations and make me think. I was looking for a good, no holds barred slug fest. Instead it was a chuckle fest. It ended up being pathetic whining that boiled down to kindergarten level questions like “why should I believe in God if he’s a meanie” and “why should I have to believe what I can’t see?”
...P>To end my review of this book, let me say this: in the end it doesn’t really matter whether you come to God or not. What matters is whether He comes to You.

This book is excellent. The only problem is that this book is outdated. Man would I love for smith to present a well comprehensive defense of Atheism like michael martin did but a little more readable and a lot less wordy !!!!!!!!!

_Atheism: The Case Against God_ is one of the most popular books on atheism ever produced, no doubt because of its non-technical style. If you want a thorough case against theism, go with J.L. Mackie or Michael Martin instead, but if you are after a readable starting point for studying atheism, Smith's book is well worth the price

He uses great examples to justify his point of view, and he brings up great observations about the gospels. There are the occasional jumps that he doesn't completely justify, but they are very little of them. If you want to learn about Atheism, this is the book for you.

...and I still am. But read on, this is a review. I believe in a God who allows us to honestly and openly search and question truth. Why? Well, if, as I believe, he's the embodiment of truth and of honesty, then what does he have to fear? Anyway, the book, the book...Smith writes well and his arguments flow sensibly. His points are clear and he does not tend to hang on a point too long once he's made it. It was a good mental workout to read because he raises issues that I'd never considered before. However, I only give it 3 stars because I'm 19 and am not wise with age, yet I could easily defeat every anti-god and anti-God argument Smith brought to the table (foundationally and at each point) with quotes directly from the Bible and occasionally from the worldview I derive directly from it. I recommend reading this book, critically as anyone thinking person should, and I would also recommend C.S. Lewis's shorter books, Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain. The books are written on about the same level as The Case Against God and will give you two sides of a debate so you can do something many Christians and atheists seem to fail at: weigh evidence and truly make your own decision. We all owe it to ourselves to make the best decision we can. Did you meet every "Christian" and "atheist" alive and learn their motives? Have you read every book written? Did you stand by as the galaxies began their spins? No, so do not judge before you discover at least a little. Don't count God out yet. Neither count him in. This book puts up a well-written fight against him, so read it if you haven't already.

It must be said, there's something deeply amiss with Smith's philosophies and conclusions in this book. One of Smith's favourite tricks is to compare belief in God with belief in elves or Santa Claus. He tries to refute Theist's arguments for believing in God by saying that atheists cannot 'dis-prove' the existence of invisible elves at the bottom of the garden, equally as much as they cannot 'dis-prove' the existence of God.
However, having faith in the nature of the Infinite (the ultimate Source and the sustaining reality of being), is very different to having 'faith' in Santa Claus or fairies at the bottom of the garden. Smith strangely asserts that faith is "irrational", when in fact, with regard to the nature of the infinite, we human beings cannot escape appeals for faith. If anyone tries to wriggle out of admitting they have faith (either in believing that we are here by 'accident' and that God does not exist, or that God exists and created the Universe intentionally), then such a person is claiming that they have an infallible knowledge of EVERYTHING. Smith asserts that faith itself is unnecessary and irrational, yet Smith does not have an infallible knowledge of everything. Therefore, Smith's argument against the necessity of faith is futile, arrogant, narrow minded, and it reveals intellectual bankruptcy (not to mention spiritual bankruptcy).
And Smith's refutations of the cosmological arguments are simply illogical and dogmatic. He makes statements such as "The Universe, then, has always existed and always will exist", and audaciously asserts that "the existence of God is impossible" and even, as was noted by a previous reviewer, "We may state, with certainty, that God does not exist." (? )
What makes Smith so sure that the Universe has always existed, and that the existence of God is impossible? He has FAITH that the Universe has always existed, even though scientific observations have revealed that his faith is somewhat misguided. There is massive scientific evidence that the Universe indeed had an instant of creation - the Big Bang.
Smith also says "There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the natural universe is in any way dependant upon some supernatural agency." But there is, in fact, every bit of evidence.
Scientific evidence has revealed that not only did an unprecedented amount of physical energy appear from 'somewhere', but it all started obeying deeply profound and mathematical laws.
Consider the following mathematical statement: 2 + 2 = 4.
This statement is a mental construct. It is an 'idea' that transcends any kind of physical construct, yet 2 + 2 = 4 is a 'mathematical fact'. On the level of any kind of 'materialism', the mathematical fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is meaningless.
But mathematics has become 'incarnate' in our cosmos (i.e. atoms exist which are governed by laws which exhibit mathematics - see the 'inverse square law of gravity' which enables scientists to predict solar eclipses, to the minute, a millennium in advance). The best place for 'mathematical ideas' to exist before our Universe existed, would be in the mind of God. Theists assert that an intelligent mathematician (God) authored these laws and gave them the opportunity to become incarnate.
So with regard to the mathematical laws grounded within our cosmos, and conscious beings who can orient themselves to the pursuit of truth, beauty and goodness, and who can experience intrinsic value, friendship, love and spiritual creativity, (all of which exists, rather than nothing at all), it is clear that it is VERY HIGHLY PROBABLE that the source of our Universe possessed intelligence, power and Good intentions - let alone Smith's warped assertion that it is "impossible".
Smith then asserts that the existence of suffering "disproves" the existence of an omnipotent Being. But this is clearly false. Just consider the nature of love. An infinite Love cannot manipulate the beloved, which means equally as much as God cannot create square circles, He also cannot prevent 'pain' from being a consequence of self-giving love. Indeed, God's omnipotence is understood from the Christian perspective as God's capacity to enter into love with all its costs. (A 'self-limiting', or a divine 'self-giving', attribute to God is central to the Christian faith). In short, an opposing evil force is the inevitable consequence of the Infinite Love, and according to many Theistic faiths, this force manifested itself as Satan.
With regard to the Christian faith, Smith focuses on extreme fundamentalism and unsurprisingly finds numerous ways of undermining it. But Smith seems oblivious to the fact that there is more to Christianity than fundamentalist dogma, Biblical literalism and spiritually bankrupt regulations.
There is a heart to Christianity - and a Spirit. It is THAT which is essential to Christianity, and it is THAT which George H. Smith has completely failed to undermine.
This book is grounded in fallacies, arrogance, narrow mindedness and warped logic. Yet according to a previous reviewer, this is the best book available on Atheism.
Well, well, well.

Smith does a good job in refuting the dualistic god. But this is not what is meant by God. God is existance. God is another name for reality. How can any atheist refute that? All religions believe in this God. I wish authors such as smith got their theology straight.

This must be one of the best books I've read on the subject. The arguments are clear and follow a logical train of thought. A must for all atheists and strongly recomemded for all theists that would like a strong test of their faith.

I've read many books on religion and counter apologetics, and this is easily one of the best. Despite being 30 years old, some of the arguments were brand new to me. The methodical and rational way the author picks apart the various traits commonly attributed to god (omniscience, omnipotence, etc) is just beautiful. Highly highly recommended!

I liked this book. I got a kick out of reading it. Smith presents existing arguments against theistic belief. Really, however, this book should probably be understood as a starting point for heavier works in the Philosophy or religion and/or epistemology.

This book is one of the most thorough, and logical cases against God that I have read. But be warned, it is a little dry. Even so, I still gave it five stars because it is so well thought out. I challenge any theist, especially Christian theist, to refute the logic in this book.

Aren't we wasting our breath here? As has been said in other reviews, in the face of the `the Infinite', all conclusive logic and intellectual scopes necessarily break down. It is true that this book shoots down fundamentalist concepts of God, and interprets religion through a very narrow scope.
But by definition, the INFINITE is not narrow. Theism will always be able to rise above these arguments. Many of our religious concepts and tales are deliberately portrayed as child-like imagery and metaphorical statements, in order to reflect deeper truths that cannot be wholly contained in a finite mind. To interpret these tales and concepts through a `literal lens', as writers like Smith so often insist upon doing, is to miss the deeper meaning of our religious convictions.
Whatever we believe about ultimate issues of existence, as long as we find inner peace through it, all is well. Isn't authentic inner peace what we're all searching for? This is why there really is no "burden of proof" for a religionist. Inner peace and spiritual liberation is by no means a burden. We're all on a personal journey, here to discover the Truth for ourselves. Let each soul walk its path.
Overall, whether we believe that there is transcendent, overarching purpose to the cosmos (i.e. the theistic stance), or whether we believe that there is no intrinsic purpose to anything, (i.e. the atheistic stance), - it's all a matter of faith. If we possess no faith or belief at all, regarding ultimate issues of existence, then we are agnostic. Period. The only way to possess a faith-free understanding is to have an infallible knowledge of everything, which is an attribute given only to God.

As many other reviewers have pointed out, this is a clear and concise book. The protests of dogmatic Christians notwithstanding, atheism does not involve "blind faith"; it is the notion of "God" which, ultimately, demands faith as all arguments in favor of God in general, and the Christian God in particular, fall far short of establishing God's existence, let alone his benevolence. George H. Smith systematically outlines the most common arguments in favor of God's existence and refutes them in a manner which is generally effective.
I was initially attracted to this book on account of Smith's libertarianism. What I didn't notice before reading it is that Smith is one of "those" libertarians---a devotee of Ayn Rand. This figures heavily, and unfortunately, in his chapter dealing with the ethics of theism versus atheism; Rand and Nathaniel Branden serve as major sources. The case for the omnibenevolence of God, as put forth by Christians, is so incredibly weak that Smith would hardly need recourse to "experts" like Rand and Branden to counter it; on the contrary, in using them as sources, he needlessly gives credence to the popular (if false) Christian notion that atheism is somehow a religion or faith in opposition to Christianity.
Citing the authority of Ayn Rand is like citing the authority of Lyndon LaRouche. I don't claim to have read everything by either of them; I'm sure in any case that both are intelligent people who made good points on occasion. Both, however, have given rise to cults of devoted and unquestioning followers; Rand, in particular, was notorious for her contempt for the opinions of others as well as her deliberate cultivation of an inner circle of sycophants.
No one seriously suggesting changes in America's foreign policy would cite Lyndon LaRouche, no matter how eloquently LaRouche had argued his case; the cult surrounding him is so wacky as to create an unnecessary obstacle to the audience's appreciation of the point to be made. Ayn Rand elicits a similarly visceral response, and is thus a weak authority to cite no matter how well she justified her atheistic stance.
Smith's arguments, therefore, are generally good as long as they are taken for what they are, but the reader should be aware that this book is tainted by Randism.

Blah, blah, and more blah. That is the summary of George H. Smith's "Atheism". There are some fine paragraphs and some interesting ideas, but much of the book is stuff like "the epistemology of reason gives metaphysical analysis pause to consider theological corollaries". I'm sure a philosopher really enjoys seeing "epistemology" and "metaphysics" in every paragraph of the book, but I think it just obscures a straightforward discussion.

If Smith were direct, he would say that believing in a god is like believing in "unies"--no reliable person can describe that word in terms we can understand; no one has seen a unie; and those who believe in unies are no better off than those who don't. Therefore, god is a concept that doesn't make any sense and doesn't warrant our attention. He gets carried away at the end (and therefore the reading is more interesting) bashing Jesus' teachings as unoriginal and likely to cause believers "emotional suicide". This is not an enjoyable or interesting book, for the most part, and I wouldn't recommend it to others.

But an "attempt" is all it is. The author makes the fatal flaw of trying to prove that God does not exist because no religion can define specifically what "God" is. But the author doesn't have a definition either, so it's a double-edged sword. How do you prove something DOESN'T exist if you can't explain what "it" is?
Author Smith never ventures away from the traditional, limited views of organized religions to question what immense intelligence created the universe. From a flower, to the human brain, to the most distant galaxy...can all of this have come from NOTHING? Now THAT'S something I'd like to read a dispute on.

Don't get me wrong, George Smith raises some interesting points about why there might not be a God. Most importantly, I think, is the question of, if there is a God, who created him? But I believe that humans, being above animals, have a God-hunger, and all of us have a Higher Power of some kind that we believe in, and Smith, whether he realizes it or not, is no exception. His "God" is reason. If he cannot make it fit into reason, then he does not believe in it. That is fine for him, and more power to him. But the reality is, he is no more of an atheist than I am, as a Christian.

The biggest flaw in the book was that it focused too much on refuting the Christian God over refuting other gods. It seemed to me that Smith had an ax to grind. Maybe he has a point. Too many atrocities have been committed in the name of the Christian God, but is it the fault of God, or those who have chosen to warp God's message? Finally, his final chapters on ethics is disturbing. It seems that his "reasonable" take on ethics is that we should do what ought to make us happy, as opposed to what we are guilted into by Christian ethics. But Christian ethics are about everyone putting the welfare of others first; if we all did that, then we all would be truly joyous, which is deeper than a mere superficial happiness, and we would live in peace. As usual, I am being somewhat utopian, but I believe that if we believed in God's kingdom here on earth, we could achieve that state.

Smiths book has been called one of the best books for the atheist position. I fail to see why. Aside from the angry tone of the book all of his arguments can be refuted. To take a few examples. Lets start with his argument for existance. Smith argues that postulating Gods existance is unnecessary. Smith believes that God is a contingent being. That is, God may or may not exist. Lets assume for the moment that Smith is right. God does not exist. What then is there? Well we have simply existance. Now it is axiomatic that something cannot come from nothing. Existance therefore must be eternal. If its eternal, then it must have no beginning or end. It must be infinite. What is infinite must have all positive things in it. There is no such thing as a negative truth, thus there can be no evil in this existance. What is this awesome existance? God. Smith proves Gods existance in spite of himself. What atheists try to do is to say there is no God, there is only the universe. If they are pressed to explain existance, they give to the universe the attributes of God ie; eternity, infinity, etc. What then is the diffrence? Is the universe God? No, because it is not perfect. It is not eternal nor is it infinite. How then do atheists explain the existance? They can't. Either they admit God is, or their explanations are unintelligble. Atheism is unintelligble. That disqualifies it from even philosophical inquiry. Smith claims that theistic claims are unintelligible, but its the atheists that have no meaning to their claims. Smith then argues against Gods existance, by claiming that God cannot be all good and yet evil exists. It is true that God is all good, but this also means that God is all just. If God did not punish evil resulting from man's wrong use of free will, then it could be claimed that God doesnt exist. Smiths book is good in that it gives the contrary viewpoint, but it does not present a convincing case against God.

Don't get me wrong, George Smith raises some interesting points about why there might not be a God. Most importantly, I think, is the question of, if there is a God, who created him? But I believe that humans, being above animals, have a God-hunger, and all of us have a Higher Power of some kind that we believe in, and Smith, whether he realizes it or not, is no exception. His "God" is reason. If he cannot make it fit into reason, then he does not believe in it. That is fine for him, and more power to him. But the reality is, he is no more of an atheist than I am, as a Christian.

The biggest flaw in the book was that it focused too much on refuting the Christian God over refuting other gods. It seemed to me that Smith had an ax to grind. Maybe he has a point. Too many atrocities have been committed in the name of the Christian God, but is it the fault of God, or those who have chosen to warp God's message? Finally, his final chapters on ethics is disturbing. It seems that his "reasonable" take on ethics is that we should do what ought to make us happy, as opposed to what we are guilted into by Christian ethics. But Christian ethics are about everyone putting the welfare of others first; if we all did that, then we all would be truly joyous, which is deeper than a mere superficial happiness, and we would live in peace. As usual, I am being somewhat utopian, but I believe that if we believed in God's kingdom here on earth, we could achieve that state.

Smiths book has been called one of the best books for the atheist position. I fail to see why. Aside from the angry tone of the book all of his arguments can be refuted. To take a few examples. Lets start with his argument for existance. Smith argues that postulating Gods existance is unnecessary. Smith believes that God is a contingent being. That is, God may or may not exist. Lets assume for the moment that Smith is right. God does not exist. What then is there? Well we have simply existance. Now it is axiomatic that something cannot come from nothing. Existance therefore must be eternal. If its eternal, then it must have no beginning or end. It must be infinite. What is infinite must have all positive things in it. There is no such thing as a negative truth, thus there can be no evil in this existance. What is this awesome existance? God. Smith proves Gods existance in spite of himself. What atheists try to do is to say there is no God, there is only the universe. If they are pressed to explain existance, they give to the universe the attributes of God ie; eternity, infinity, etc. What then is the diffrence? Is the universe God? No, because it is not perfect. It is not eternal nor is it infinite. How then do atheists explain the existance? They can't. Either they admit God is, or their explanations are unintelligble. Atheism is unintelligble. That disqualifies it from even philosophical inquiry. Smith claims that theistic claims are unintelligible, but its the atheists that have no meaning to their claims. Smith then argues against Gods existance, by claiming that God cannot be all good and yet evil exists. It is true that God is all good, but this also means that God is all just. If God did not punish evil resulting from man's wrong use of free will, then it could be claimed that God doesnt exist. Smiths book is good in that it gives the contrary viewpoint, but it does not present a convincing case against God.

It is unfortunate that I was forced to rate this book at least one star. If I had my way, I would not have given it any stars at all. If you want sophmoric drivel, then this book is for you. The section on the argument from Design was one of the weakest I have ever read (and I have read quite a few). Smith did not even bother to engage the Anthropic Principle in his book. Since it was published in '79, even some mentioning of it would not seem too much to ask. However, there is nothing on the AP at all. This tells me one of two things: either Smith is ignorant of the AP (in which he CERTAINLY should not be writing a critique of the design argument) or the AP makes him a bit nervous & fidgety. In either case, Smith's intellectual impotence shines thru this omission. If Smith proves nothing else in this book, he proves without a shadow of a doubt that he does not understand the argument from Design. His section on the first cause argument is not much better. Is it too much to ask that Smith have SOME scientific knowledge in these matters? If so, why is he even writing the book in the first place? The book is also written in an angry tone. Evidently, some theist(s) at one time or another must have really stepped on his toes. That is all fine and well, but it does not excuse such a condescending tone. This is a lousy book & it will be a long time before Smith gains the status of amateur philosopher (if ever).

This is truly a work for the uninformed sophomore. It is hailed as the port-hole of rational and logical thinking by many of the reviewers here. But the unfortunate fact of the matter is that it does nothing of the kind. The author shows a distinct lack of knowledge in theology and logic.
Here's one simple example which will illustrate the point. The author discusses at length the law of Cause and Effect. He rightfully laments on the necessity of this law to the theist, since the theist pre-supposes that if the universe exists (effect) then there must be a Cause to account for this effect. The theist attributes this cause to the supernatural phenomenon of God. However the author dismisses this as irrational. He extends the Cause and Effect argument to the sphere of God and claims that the law prohibits the existence of a God (effect) without a cause. This one single gem of an argument crumbles the foundations of this book. Why? Because the author assumes that God acts within the constraints of time. According to the theory of relativity however, time itself began with the universe and is a dimension of the universe (there is good experimental support for this). Hence to extend the law of Cause and Effect to include God (the supernatural or the first cause) is absolutely nonsensical. By extension, questions such as "where did God come from?" therefore become meaningless, since God acts outside of the created creature called Time!
Another of the author's points of attack is "Faith." He spends enormous time refuting this very notion and slamming it as irrelevant to the healthy atheist. But all this is in vein since it seems as though he is unaware of one simple fact: that he, himself has absolute faith in the non-existence of God! He cannot by any means prove that God does not exist, simply because he has no access to all the available information in the universe.
But logical flaws are not the only problems in this book. The author expects the reader to perceive him as objective. Nothing could be further from the truth. Almost from the outset, the author's anti-Christian bigotry shines. He spends enormous time elaborating on the `sins' of Christians, the cruelty of the Christian God, and suffering inherent to the world. Never does he ponder the God given free will of human kind and the capacity of humanity to do evil as well as good. Never does this objective author consider, the murderous exploits of atheism during the 20th century. Nice atheists such as Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin were responsible for the brutal murder of at least 100,000,000 human beings during this time.
I have never seen any objective writings when it comes to the subject of God and this book certainly changes none of that. As I said before, it most certainly does appeal to the uninformed. However it is flawed, both logically and theologically.

Thanks to this book I can now win every argument related to religion. I have turned bible thumping christians into blathering fools in front of crowds of people. I have reduced my religious friends to stammering idiots. I have destroyed the credibility of the beliefs of everyone I know.

I have no friends anymore either.

Though I consider myself a Christian, I do not support the Christian apologetic stance that our faith can be verified through reason, and George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" gives ample reasons as to why. Faith should be, as Soren Kierkegaard envisioned it, a purely irrational leap.
The restriction on the length of my review of this book (imposed by
the store.com at a 1,000 words) does not allow me to delineate all the positive particulars this book has to offer. Regrettably, I can only emphasize what aspects of this book distinguish it from other works of a similar nature.
One of the most attractive features that I found in Smith's book was his ability to convey complex philosophical dilemmas, that are germane to the realm of theism, without falling into the common practice - which most professional philosophers constantly do - of inundating his arguments with esoteric jargon. Any laymen can peruse through Smith's work without having to open a philosophical dictionary every five minutes. While Smith does put forth his charges against religious belief in a manner that is fairly easy to grasp, he does not sacrifice substantive content, therefore an individual who is more seasoned in the subject of philosophy and theology will not find "Atheism: The Case Against God" lacking by any means. This ability to reach both the philosophical hobbyist and the academician speaks much of Smith's talent as a writer as it does of him as a philosopher.
Outside this book's easily discernable assertions, another noteworthy characteristic of Smith's piece is its originality. In reading other works relating to non-theistic argumentation, I began to see the same routine of arguing for atheism, which consisted of providing a summation of a particular theistic argument, and then find certain fallacies or misrepresentations that the argument may have. Whether the argument happened to be cosmological, teleological, ontological, or moralistic the same technique was employed to engage all of them. Though this is a very effective means of addressing an argument, it is one that has been used ad nauseam. So for an individual who has been exposed to a great deal of such kinds of work, it is refreshing to see this more innovative approach to the whole theistic/atheistic controversy.
If one had to describe Smith's approach in one word that word would have to be "fundamental". As stated earlier, other philosophical works that address the theistic position get bogged down in the various details of theistic argumentation, without striking at the root or presupposition that such arguments are built on. Smith's technique on the other hand address what is at the heart of these arguments.
What is at the root of most theistic arguments for the belief in a
God? According to Smith this is not the proper question to ask. The proper question to ask is what is presupposition of any argument period. The answer to this question is the ability to decipher truth from falsehood.
Yet verification, as Smith so deftly explains to his audience, rests on the use of certain standards, which gauge the reality of any given proposition. Since we exist within a universe our standards must be derived from our perception of the universe. Given this idea, if anything is posited, which exists outside the universe (i.e. God or any form of supernatural entity), the argument is futile. In fact, as Mr. Smith rightly claims, it is not an argument at all. The universe, in the words of Ayn Rand are the "causal primary". One cannot talk about causation (i.e. cosmological arguments), design (i.e. teleological arguments), or moralistic arguments unless one is speaking within a proper context, which in this case is the universe itself. To do otherwise is to regress into a state of incoherence. For example, it is ultimately absurd to talk about a cause to the universe, if we derive the concept of cause from our observation of the universe. To talk about a concept, such as causal relationships, outside the context from which the concept was realized (i.e. the universe) is to divorce it from its context. Thus the theist has rendered his argument ineffective. To paraphrase Mr. Smith "to talk about a cause to the universe is like talking about a bird's flight with no atmosphere." In one crushing argumentative blow after another, with the physical universe as a necessary axiom, Mr. Smith annihilates most of traditional theistic rhetoric, without even delving into the individual fallacies, which are inherent in all of them. Only two words are necessary to describe his approach - "SHEER BRILLIANCE!!!" The theist is left with very few options. He either can retract all his assertions and admit that there is no rational basis for the belief in God or he can attack the very foundation of reason (the physical universe) - thus precluding his right to employ argument. Either way, George Smith backs the Christian apologist and proponents of the supernatural into such a tight corner, that it is virtually impossible for them to escape
A theist, who has read other critiques on theism and agrees with them, may believe that he has some recourse in faith. However Mr. Smith has addressed this issue and shown it as an invalid method for attaining the truth. Clearly Mr. Smith in his book "Atheism: The Case Against God" leaves theists with no options. He has shown theism, and especially the Christian manifestation of it, for what it truly is - a worldview rife with misology. Mr. Smith undermines the old Christian adage that all truth can be found if one believes in God, and instead edifies David's Brooks position that "to explain the unknown by the known is logical procedure, but to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." This book is a must read for anyone pondering the claims of theism seriously.

This is a good book for describing Atheistic superstition and emotional ideologies.
In his first chapter 'The Scope of Atheism', Smith describes the difference between implicit and explicit atheism, and then concludes that "atheism is not a belief".
However, atheism is most certainly a belief because atheists do not possess an infallible knowledge of everything. Atheism exclusively rules out any kind of belief in a supernatural agent or an intelligent Source, therefore, by definition, atheists believe that natural causes can account for the whole of reality - including the nature of the infinite, the ultimate source of the material world, consciousness, and the sustaining reality of being. Smith's argument is flawed and fallacious because he fails to acknowledge the fact that atheists' belief is necessarily shifted onto materialism.
Smith asserts that faith is "irrational" and that any appeals to faith are "unacceptable".
Theists are now in the position to insist that Smith carries the logical burden of these assertions to its full conclusion. Is it true that God does not exist and that an intelligent agent was NOT the cause of the material Universe? Is it true that our existence was not intentional? Is it true that the Universe has no inherent meaning? Are Smith's conclusions that "We may state, with certainty, that God does not exist", true?
According to Smith's own criteria, all of these statements are "unacceptable" and "irrational". Due to the fact that human beings do not possess an infallible knowledge of everything, such assertions must necessarily be grounded in faith.
A mathematically ordered Universe which happened to become aware of itself, and which gave rise to friendship, love and spiritual creativity is not a good sign that the Universe is purposeless and that our existence was not intentional.
Indeed, the fact that something exists, rather than nothing at all, is also not a good sign that the Infinite is inherently meaningless.
In his chapter 'Reason Verses Faith', Smith says: "Scratch the surface of a Christian, and you find an agnostic." But Smith has got it the wrong way round. The difference between theists and atheists is that theists wholeheartedly acknowledge the necessity of faith.
With regard to theistic faith, if the source of the material Universe possessed intelligence which exists beyond the framework of science, then how can theists be expected to "prove" His existence? 'Faith' is the key - for every human being alive.
The truth is that if you scratch the surface of an atheist who denies 'belief' (such as Smith), then you find an agnostic. If the atheist persists in denying the necessity of 'belief' (such as Smith), then I'm afraid you find an irrational human being.
In his Chapter 'The Skepticism of Faith", Smith equates belief in God with belief in Santa Claus, and claims that you cannot dis-prove the existence of Santa Claus equally as much as you cannot dis-prove the existence of God. If Smith truly sees 'Santa Claus' on an equal level to the existence of the Infinite and deep spiritual fulfilment, then Smith has neatly exhibited how defective and shallow his perspective on theism and reality actually is.
Smith fails to appreciate the fact that the Bible is a totally different type of book to a scientific literal text book, and he approaches every passage literally and concludes that the text is "irrational". His appreciation and knowledge about any kind of spirituality, depth, or theistic faith is completely defective, and his conclusions are frankly illogical. Any arguments which Smith sets against Christianity, he targets the most extreme, fundamentalist and un-worldy Christians you could imagine. If Smith sincerely believes that all theists and Christians are as portrayed, then it merely reveals Smith's narrow minded and ideological outlook on reality.
Throughout the Chapters which contain a dialogue between a skeptic and an 'antiskeptic', Smith always rigs the dialogue so that the antiskeptic always ends up losing the argument. This method of deriding an opposing belief reveals spinelessness and pre-meditated fallacies.
In short, the very heart and grounding of Smith's case against God is flawed and deeply fallacious. Smith's 'Atheism' is ideological and emotional to the core, but what makes it all the more incredible and disgraceful, is Smith's outright denial of the necessity of faith.
And people say that Atheism is freedom from dogma? When are adherents of Smith going to open their eyes?

I thought the most important point in this book has to do

with the question of what a god is. "How would you know a

god if you came across one?"

He answers this question from both an epistimological and

metaphysical framework, and his answer is that you cannot

rationally say that a god exists. I think he answers this

conclusively so that the only other option is a *leap of faith*

which is unjustifiable. If god is completely unknowable then at the very least the requirement should be to remain silent on the issue. The theist is armed with nothing other then superstition and can't be taken seriously.

I believe that belief in God is really belief in self. The spiritual transcendence that theists *feel* has to do with the

desire for Immortality and the fanatical longing for significance concerning every action(or thought) we take. Since we are fallible, mankind has invented an infallible

version of himself and calls this creation god.

Of course, all the rules and commandments were created for a certain social order that these theists found favorable to their situation. The above *package deal* was then transmitted

from generation to generation, and the existence of other religions has to do with cultural evolution. Many societies have gone from Polytheism to Monotheism, especially in the west.

But everything about the gods, or god is anthropomorphic. The god of our imagination is nothing more then what we are or what we'd like to become. God's attributes are perfect versions of ours. God's wrath is primitive man's wrath againt his warring neighbors which justified a plethora of atrocities including genocides, execution and torture of heretics, supression of freedom of speech and liberty in general.

Other interesting points about the book is that he first deconstructs the agnostic belief(or lack of belief) and then turns to Christianity and shows that when push comes to shove

the Christian(Jew and Islam) belief in God amounts to nothing more then Agnosticism. Therefore, one cannot say anything *positive* about god, since there is nothing that can be known

by definition. Once critiquing the Christian God and his supposed attributes,we are instructed to refer to his sections on the Agnostic/Deist sections of his book. All parties in the end believe that god is *unknowable*, so there is no point in going further in discussion with the believer since no real knowledge can be gained. It was always the *burden of proof*

for the believer to justify his/her belief in a god. In the realm of knowledge one can conclusively state that god does not exist and is a self-contradictory concept.

Once the believer accepts reality, he is then free to see things as the really are. There are no gods, devils, angels, elves, or fairies.

The(Ex)believer is then free from tyrannical ideas about hell, the intolerance toward people with other beliefs, etc. This kind of of freedom can bring much relief to the *guilty* sinner. Mr Smith does deal with some of these issues, such as sin and guilt and the harm that Christianity does to the psyche.

This happens to be my favorite book on atheism. It answers some fundemental questions and gives a solid foundation for *unbelief*.

After accepting the arguments in this book, one may natuarally desire to look at Evolution and science to answer other questions that one may have. I will state though, that the answers from science will end up being supplements to what this book offers the reader. Then your arsenal against *faith based* answers to life will be complete.

And if you are tempted back to the faith, ask yourself, "what would Satan do!"

This book should be titled, One Way To Become an Atheist, because George Smith does a remarkable job presenting twisted, intellectually inaccurate conclusions about the nature of God, directly relating to how to convince yourself that the God of the Bible does not exist or at the very least, that God is not good and he is not fair. Smith has intellectually labored, resulting with words that represent the clear ability to discern characteristics inaccurately, convincing himself that he doesn't know God. Smith is clear in the purpose of writing his book which, as he says, is to destroy the Christian God to a blank unknowable something. He states his goal again very clearly, "... we are attempting to bury the Christian God by reducing him to the void of the unknowable." Smith sounds like an intellectually rebellious prodigal son who didn't get the blessing of being a head priest, so he is stomping on the ground in a fit much like a preschooler would do if he didn't get the last cookie while trying to convince the rest of his class that the teacher is either evil or really doesn't exist, which in all cases, we know preschool teachers do exist and they are not evil.

I think it's interesting how Christians AND atheists feel as if it can prove one side to be right in a space as small as a book review. The issue of an existence or non-existence of God cannot be explained away through definitive statements. You can't just say PROVE IT because you can't prove to me that there isn't a God. It is important to read GOOD representations of both sides. Read this book on atheism, but also read a book on apologetics, perhaps by Geisler. Neither side is going to be able to PROVE anything (or else there would be no debate), but I've just found through investigation which side I find to be more probable, which is the existence of God. It is possible for intelligent people to believe in such a thing, and also to not believe such a thing. Let's try to meet each other on equal levels.

The most embarrassing aspect of Smith's presentation is that no great technical interaction is necessary to confute his claims. From beginning to end, Smith's most basic fallacy is that he begs-the-question on the grandest scale. In other words, his arguments only succeed because they blatantly presuppose that atheism is true and Christianity is false. Given that assumption, it is a simple exercise to conclude that atheism is true, in which case Smith's book would have been much shorter and not sold as well, However, as we will see, he not only assumes what he attempts to prove, but his critique only succeeds if he is omniscient, in which case, his book would have been much more expensive.

On Begging the Question

The weapon Smith uses most significantly throughout the various turns in his argument is his claim regarding the limits placed on the concept of God by a non-theistic natural law framework. But this assumes what needs to be proven. A parallel and equally silly counter-argument might be that Smith's atheism is false since it fails to account for divine attributes. But a silly response is all that a silly argument calls for.

We find Smith's question-begging argument in his initial discussion of a supernatural being. His argument (40) can be filled out as follows:

Premise 1 -- The universe and every entity behave in accord with natural law ("uniformity of nature").

Premise 2 -- Natural law is determined by the limited nature of existence.

Premise 3 -- Existence is limited in that every entity has a specific nature, determinate (finite) characteristics, that determine the capacities of that entity.

Premise 4 -- Whatever does not have finite characteristics does not exist.

Premise 5 -- A supernatural being does not have finite characteristics

Conclusion -- A supernatural being does not exist.

If you remember, Smith is so impressed with this argument that he has the theist concede and shift the debate. But why would a theist concede to such a silly argument? What theist would grant the anti-theistic premises? Even theists who hold to some form of natural law metaphysic would not grant that every entity is limited by natural law, and yet that is exactly what Smith requires.

Even more laughable are the universal generalizations contained in most of the premises. How does Smith justify such claims as "Every entity has a specific nature," or "to be something is to be something specific," or "regularity in nature is a con sequence of limitations," or "no existing thing can randomly do anything at any time under any conditions," or "the principle of natural law itself is a constant."

Has Smith investigated every entity and every aspect of the universe? Can he provide empirical studies demonstrating his claims about existence and regularities? And while he certainly provides no a priori proof for such dogmatic claims, they would be fun to see anyway. Perhaps Smith would like us simply to bow before the authority of Aristotle on such questions, but Christians are far too skeptical for such dogmatisms.

Smith's premises require omniscience, and short of that, Smith's own epistemology leads to skepticism, since the above magical premises are so integral to his epistemology (90). This outcome is not surprising to the Christian, since this tension is the constant state of those who reject a Biblical view of reality; they are tossed back and forth between omniscience and skepticism.

On Begging a Bigger Question

Smith not only happily assumes a universe which precludes the Christian God, he also begs-the-question regarding the ultimate standards one uses to evaluate the war between atheism and Christianity. Both Christianity and atheism evaluate arguments and evidence on the basis of some standard beyond which there is no further appeal; this Absolute standard is inescapable. For the Christian, the Absolute standard is the personal triune God revealed in Scripture. There is no higher court of appeal by which the Christian evaluates what is rational, ethical, or real. A Biblical outlook simply does not countenance any human standard of rationality to which God must answer. If God is truly Absolute, as he is presented in Scripture, then He stands as the ultimate judge over all issues in logic, ethics, reality, and knowledge. The Christian God is not in the dock being forced to answer to our finite standards.

Atheists must howl at this sort of stance, since it appears to beg-the-question against any atheistic claim. Yet the atheist's howling is naive. If there were some higher standard of "reason" or "conceivability" by which both the atheist and Christian could adjudicate their dispute, then the Christian God would not be Absolute; He would be limited by something outside and above His nature. Yet the Christian does not worship some being subordinate to Platonic Forms or some alleged higher standard of reason or goodness. The Christian God is truly the final court of appeal.

The atheist also has a final court of appeal. The atheist also bows before an Absolute standard. And just like the Christian, the atheist does not permit anything to correct or evaluate this ultimate standard, for if he did then the standard would obviously not be the final court of appeal.

The ultimate standard for the non-Christian, in general, and Smith, in particular, is finite human rationality -- or the autonomous human mind. Though this Absolute standard is often portrayed as "Reason," it is, from a Christian standpoint, a distortion of reason. Nevertheless, this non-Christian Absolute functions in much the same manner as the Christian Absolute. Non-Christians even use religious terminology when they refer to this Absolute -- "bowing before the bar of reason" or "reason is the only guide" or "we cannot dispute reason" or "an offense against reason."

Smith is rather blatant in specifying his religious commitment to his Absolute. Note just a sample of statements which point to his atheistic dogmatism:

"We obviously cannot accept the proposed attributes of God uncritically; we must determine if they are intelligible" (61);

"According to atheism, all of existence falls (in principle) within the scope of man's knowledge" (89);

"The idea of the unknowable is an insult to the intellect" (45);

"We cannot imagine an immaterial being' because the concept of matter' is essential to our concept of being'" (67);

"How can one conceptualize existence apart from matter, energy and their derivatives, when these are the only kinds of existence of which we have knowledge" (54);

"Theism offers us a bit of knowledge' which, if true, would destroy the foundation of all present knowledge by obliterating the naturalistic context within which we comprehend reality" (90).

What more need be said? Any being not bowing to the finite human intellect cannot exist! Smith in principle rules out any Absolute which stands as an epistemological judge over his Absolute. But since the Christian God is just that -- an Absolute standard evaluating finite human rationality -- Smith again begs-the-question against the Christian, this time by using a standard which guarantees the falsity of Christianity. It is no wonder then that he can offer such bravado as "the Christian...is defending the rationally indefensible" (88). Smith's bravado, however, reduces to the assertion that Christianity is false because atheism is true (said perhaps with a loud voice and an authoritative glare). But this sort of claim is not very convincing.

Smith has entirely missed the debate. Instead of assuming the falsity of Christianity and passing this off as some high-level rational analysis, Smith should enter the debate between two competing Absolutes. Which Absolute is superior? We may ask this question because we are not abandoned to relativism; we are not left with two faith commitments. We may determine the superiority of one of the views by, among other things, demonstrating that one view fails to meet up to its own claims, or similarly, by determining which view of reality provides the preconditions of the knowledge we do indeed have.

The Christian argues that Smith's Absolute fails on its own standards. Smith's atheism claims to provide a basis for knowledge when in fact it destroys the very foundation of rationality, logic, science, and ethics. For example, Smith needs to explain how he can appeal to reason at all. How does a materialist account for logical laws which are universal and immaterial? How is he justified in invoking universal generalizations when he is not omniscient? How can he reconcile appealing to a naturalistic framework and yet repeatedly invoke ghostly entities such as essences, natures, consciousness, justice, and evil? In short, if Smith were more consistent with his outlook, then he would weed it of its dependence on Christianity, but such a purge would destroy all his claims to knowledge as well.

Every Christian should read this book. It will provide a good overview of the arguments often employed against God. Others, before they take Smith too seriously, should note how often Smith uses seriously flawed reasoning to support his arguments.

Far too often Smith frames his arguments as false dilemmas. He provides two options, often choosing an obscure and convoluted quote in support of the theistic argument and, of course, overwhelms the less desireable theistic option with his reasoning. Case won?

Hardly.

A case in point is his quotation of Thomas Aquinas in reference to Exodus 3:13-14 on page 63. After chewing up Aquinas's explanation of the name of God, "He Who Is," Smith concludes on page 66 that "the concept of God is without cognitive content."

Really. Maybe the concept expressed by Aquinas is without cognitive content, but that says nothing about God, only about Thomas Aquinas.

I personally, speaking as a Christian, do not read Exodus 3:1-14 anything like Aquinas does. I read it as a statement that God really is, in contrast to the gods of Egypt who are not real. I read it as a statement equivalent to "the living God," a declaration God makes about himself often throughout Scripture.

That has cognitive content.

In addition to my understanding of Exodus 3:13-14, there are many others. Most of them are much clearer than Aquinas. Why not wrestle with those ideas. But no, Smith chooses his battles carefully. He really wants to win more than he wants to engage the idea. In the process he sacrifices logic, and that is doubly ironic for one who claims that reason is the queen of the sciences.

My second complaint is that the title misrepresents the content. Since Smith is primarily addessing his case against the Hebrew and Christian God you might expect he would engage what the Bible says rather than what theologians say. But no, Smith with few exceptions quotes theologians and often theolgians who do not represent the historical understanding of either Hebrew religious thought or Christian thought. Yes, he sometimes makes his case, but not against God.

My final complaint is that Smith does not understand or chooses to ignore what the Bible does say in the few instances when he refers to it. In the last chapter on the morality of Jesus and on page 324 Smith calls the idea that the intent is equal to the action, vis a vis Jesus' statement that hate is the same as murder, etc., psychologically naive. He declares we cannot control our thoughts or emotions, so we should not be judged for them.

But he overlooks the genius of Jesus' message. It is this: Our thoughts and emotions can be changed. We can love rather than hate. We can regard a woman without passion rather than with lust.

To accept Smith's fatalistic philosophy that we are who we are, though we may control to some degree what we do, is to leave us in a state of hopelessness and impotency. But then maybe that is the best Atheism has to ofter. If so, that is powerful reason to explore what the Bible teaches in more depth than the superficial treatment Smith gives it.

A critique of atheistic philosophies cannot substitute for the task of providing a satisfactory theistic philosophy, but it may clear the way for it in the minds of those who are persuaded by one atheistic philosophy or another. A fatally flawed philosophy, however, cannot ground a critique of theism or of any other philosophy. The former's champion may hit upon a fruitful line of criticism, but cannot develop it. Smith's compendium of anti-Christian argumentation, while clearly and even engagingly written, is fatally flawed. Its metaphysics of "natural necessity," epistemology of "reason," and ethics of "life" (or "happiness") together constitute the philosophy that he adduces in support of his "critical atheism." Its internal incoherence, however, disqualifies it as a reasonable basis for affirming or denying anything. For a retailing of Smith's predicament, visit my eponymous site.

I was hoping this book would provide me with new insight into atheism, but found myself very disappointed. However the author is knowledgable about the subject and demonstrates his position well.
His examination of bible passages was out of sorts with common Christian theology which he must regard to prove his point. The author falled to understand that faith and reason are not divorced from each other. He implies that Christians operate on faith alone which is simply not true. Faith has two sides;one, is that a believer put trust into the object of his/her belief and second, faith is a supernatural event given by god.
His first attempt to dispute god by defining the word "god" away is simply silly nonsense. The point is that the word "god" has meaning and content. The point is that believers know it and use it and understand it. The author should spend less time devoted to redefining words and more time in critical thought.

If your purpose is to understand the standard arguments you'll hear from your average mustache-sporting atheist friend from the coffee shop, grab this book. It's straightforward, and I'm sure anyone with a few philosophy undergrad classes could understand it...or someone very patient.

If your purpose is to find new thoughts that advance the dialogue...there's nothing original either in terms of argument or synthesis. I'd imagine you could find more careful or enjoyable books for the first purpose of merely hearing these arguments (like Mackie's "Miracle of Theism).

Qua review, that's all to be said. In terms of argumentation, this book is thoroughly, thoroughly confused. But rather than try to convince you and fall into the same trap I outlined, I can only recommend you read some better philosophy.

Check out the works of Thomas Kuhn to first shake you from your dogmatic slumber, and then Plato, Aristotle, and the later Wittgenstein--or scholars who talk about these guys and their relationship to contemporary philosophy. Happy soul searching!

Smith left the University of Arizona without getting a degree, and it shows in his writings. As I read through the book I noticed his lack of understanding in the field of philosophy, asserting his case on the basis that lack of proof is a disproof, which the most basic philosophy class should teach you.

Smith has surely even failed to correctly define atheism in the first chapter of his book. " The prefix "A" means "without," so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism," or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief." He must not have taken any greek because he would have known that atheism stems from A-Theos & not a-theism. There is no word for belief in the translation of a-theos from greek to english, it is simply "without god." Theos means god so theism is deemed as belief in god where atheism is deemed as belief in no-god. Any dictionary will show you this.

Smith also asserts that "If one presents a positive belief (i.e., an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor." Smith then continuously claims the atheist needs no proof for his/her claim for atheism. If you put these two ideas together you see that Smith must not think atheism is actually true, or else he is contradicting the foundations of his own thoughts, either way it is problematic.

Smith makes another large problem on his notions of faith & reason. He says " I will not accept the existence of God, or any doctrine, on faith because I reject faith as a valid cognitive procedure." He then says " If reason can tell us anything there is to know, there is no longer a job for faith. The entire notion of faith rests upon and presupposes the inadequacy of reason." Again, anyone who has taken any science or philosophy class knows that there is an incredible amount of things we do not know that come into play in everyday life. Surely anyone understands that there is no person who knows everything there is to know (accept maybe a god) & this means reason is limited, which Smith denies. This means that in actuality, we live by faith everyday. Therefore Smith should not accept others existence or the universe as real because they institute some sort of faith. Smith must not have done much research on the differences of belief & knowledge or else he would have understood this.

Finally, Smith writes, "We should not that none of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the events that they describe, but even if the authors had been personal friends of Jesus, their reports would be no more credible." This statement shows Smith's bias. He has not "gone where the evidence has taken him," he has merely sought to do the thing he claims ignorant theist do, hold onto a dogma at any cause. He shows that no matter what evidence he sees he will remain an atheist. In his third section of the book we see his inability to refute both the design & first cause arguments. In both situations he denies the arguments & then gives no real basis for doing so.

If you want to read some good anti-theistic writing I suggest you search elsewhere. Perhaps old Flew writings (since he has now converted to theism), or Russell, some Hume, Nietzsche, Nielson, Camus, Sartre, etc... Smith, however, has failed to do anything but show his hatred for dogmatic theist & then show his dogmatic atheism which is self-contradictory at it's foundations.

Here in this poorly argued book is the reason why most people are theists. I have never come across more foolish arguments for not believing in God, than this book. Here is a sampling of some of the "brilliant" reasoning. Using twisted definitions, Smith comes to the conclusion that the word "God" is something without meaning. Since it has no meaning, then from this we can say that God doesn't exist. To most people the word "God" means an all knowing, all powerful being. Where is the lack of meaning in this? The only thing that has no meaning is a contradiction and Smiths book is loaded with them. Using Smiths circus act of defining things into absurdity, anything can become incoherent. Take another of his "arguments". For a thing to have meaning it must have a limit. So words like "God", "limitless", and all other words must be inherent contradictions. Publishers of dictionaries, debates about Gods existence, Aristotle, and Plato have been wrong all these years when they wrote about God, the eternal and the infinite. How could such philosophers have known about "linguistic definitions" that Smith uses? We live in intresting times... How could they have known that the word "God" is really a contradiction? If the word "God" is meaningless then how is it possible for Smith to use it? If something has no meaning then it is absurd on its face. It is nothing. So all throughout the book Smith is arguing against a non existant God. To think that one would spend his time writing and arguing on nothing and all these reviewers praising a book about nothing makes me fear for the world.

I am a college student and a Christian. I have enjoyed reading this book. If you notice I gave this book 5 stars. Why? because if you're a Christian get this book, it's hilarious! As much as I respect this work, it is filled with misconceptions about the God of Christianity. Unfortunatly, many Christians would not be able to defend their position against Mr.Smith. But, I will tell you the flaw(s) splashed in this book.

If you examine Mr. Smith's style of argumentation you see he builds on certain lines of thought in which he assumes theists maintain. Where he got these assumptions is probably from Christians and self professed scholars of divinity who in their "wisdom" actually prove their ignorance. This book is proof of that! This book is built on misconceptions, therefore, it is invalid!! As I read this book, as an evangelical protestant, I tell you the conclusions he has drawn from those misconceptions are logically correct.

But, he has constructed a systematic refutation of Christian theism to the ignorant, based on his own misconceptions he has drawn from ignorant theists. In this book all Mr. Smith has done is refute his own misconceptions of theism.

Every line of thought he constructed, I could present his misconception, replace it and refute it and I'm only 21!!

If you are an atheist, you remain in intellectual darkness based on your self-imposed freethinking misconceptions.

I opened this book hoping to find logically secular explainations for Christianity. Instead I was utterly disappointed.
Many (if not all) of his objections ("sins of Christianity") are either easily refutable or just plain unintelligent.
It seems that he doesn't really understand Christianity.
Perhaps he would be intrested in actually talking with a theologen (or reading Bonfieffer) since his objections to Jesus' ethics only include untillegent questions like "Why?" and "What does that mean?" and also proving his "revolutionary originality" wrong. He must first understand what he's trying to prove wrong! In order to be an atheist, you must first know christianity; in order to be a christian, you must know atheism. Without both you're being closed minded and ignorant.
I was also really hoping for him to prove the resurrection wrong, (which I see as the hardest Christian objection) but Smith convienently skips even mentioning it in objectional discussion.
Furthermore, many of his ojections can actually be proven wrong by a first year Christian!
Also, lot's of his objections were actually just conclusions made by other atheists, directly quoted in the book! If you want to find out about atheism, maybe you should try a different book. (perhaps one of the many Smtih uses in creating his book!)

As intellectually self-indulgent as atheism itself. Athiests contempt for Christ is unbelievable...well not really. They worship the one who is against Christ and don't even know it. Satan's first lie to us was that we could be like God (decide good/right from evil/wrong). In all our science and "logic" patterns, we do not have the capacity to understand what is beyond our natural world. Life is is a miracle. It is infinitly complex and it's design is far beyond our comprehension. Speaking in terms of probability, the odds of the components of a single cell forming by chance is impossible. God is real and He cannot be minimilized away by some guy with a Darwin-Fish on the back of his Volvo.

I wasn't sure what Atheism meant when I ordered this book. I was drunk at 2am and thought I was ordering a book about the "A-Team" 80's TV show. Low and behold there was nothing in this book about about Mr. T or Hannibal. Anyways, this guy doesn't believe that God exist. And he makes a good point that nobody has ever seen God! You would think at least one person would be able to give a sketch composite. We had a pretty accurate drawing of the Una-Bomber and that guy was pretty much MIA. I personally believe in God, and it's not just because I have a tattoo that reads G-O-D on my forehead. Yaay Jesus!

How to Prove God Exists?
How come the natural systems make the color yellow, yellow.
How come dark is dark. How come we call absence of light dark? How come said absence of dark exists?
What created the materials for the big bang?
Want to challenge me?
E-Mail me at [email protected]

Anyone who has to caricature his opponent indicates the weakness of his arguement. This is gets close to doing battle with strawmen set up by one's own imagination and claiming victory.

His provincial understanding of scripture insults the reader.

Disappointing . . .

[...]

As is customary do when I go to the local Barnes and Noble, I was browsing the atheist section when another customer suggested that I read Atheism: The Case Against God by George Smith. He said it is a good, if not the best, introduction to the atheism and argument against God there is. I think the gentleman was taken aback when I said I would take him up on his suggestion because I like comic books. I wasn't being rude, just honest.

I was right, too. It reads more like a self-promoting comic book than a serious argument against theism. For example, in the in introduction he says:

It is my firm conviction that man has nothing to gain, emotionally or otherwise, by adhering to a falsehood, regardless of how comfortable or sacred that falsehood may appear. Anyone who claims, on the one hand, that he is concerned with human welfare, and who demands, on the other hand, that man must suspend or renounce the use of his reason, is contradicting himself. There can be no knowledge of what is good for man apart from knowledge of reality and human nature—and there is no manner in which this knowledge can be acquired except through reason. To advocate irrationality is to advocate that which is destructive to human life.

The author writes in the introduction: "It is my firm conviction that man has nothing to gain, emotionally or otherwise, by adhering to a falsehood, regardless of how comfortable or sacred that falsehood may appear. Anyone who claims, on the one hand, that he is concerned with human welfare, and who demands, on the other hand, that man must suspend or renounce the use of his reason, is contradicting himself. There can be no knowledge of what is good for man apart from knowledge of reality and human nature—and there is no manner in which this knowledge can be acquired except through reason. To advocate irrationality is to advocate that which is destructive to human life."

This guy calls himself a philosopher? Where did he get his credentials? Found buried in a kitty litter box? There is so much wrong with that one paragraph that it does not even rise up to the level of ludicrous. First of all, a belief that comforts is a gain for the believer whether or not that belief is true, and to rob the believer of that comfort without giving him or her something to fill the void is an act of cruelty. Secondly, what is the good of man? Is the good of an individual necessarily good for race? Third, if atheism is right, man is a rationalizing creature, not a rational one. His mind evolved to survive, not to discern what is real—which means Smith's 'firm conviction' is no more legitimate than a religious fanatic's claim to truth. than s nothing more or less than a religion-like interpretation of his experience.

Get back in the bible. Read John 10 (particularly 10:10) and quit worrying about something atheists will never prove. Scientists, biologists, etc.. can't even cure some viruses in the world let alone be trusted to solve something as complex as this (they could be way off on a lot of things). If they really find anything it will be in the media fast everyday, all day. Until then (even though it will never happen) Rely on faith. This is just another book and speculation about someone's theory about the world and for a group of atheists to get together and pat each others back. I really don't care about an atheist's religious walk and not going to waste my time trying to prove to a unbeliever who doesn't want to hear or chooses to ignore(God will deal with them). However I do care about someone getting persuaded with this nonsense and if one person hears my message on this post and continues with their personal salvation than the lord is great!! All people are immoral in their own ways and Christians, muslims and atheists have done things that are not great, but being religious or not is not about morality but about your personal salvation and then (if you listen and stay in the word),...morality follows. This book was about profiting and trying to give affirmation to something that lacks hope.

This is a good book for describing Atheistic superstition and emotional ideologies.
In his first chapter 'The Scope of Atheism', Smith describes the difference between implicit and explicit atheism, and then concludes that "atheism is not a belief".
However, atheism is most certainly a belief because atheists do not possess an infallible knowledge of everything. Atheism exclusively rules out any kind of belief in a supernatural agent or an intelligent Source, therefore, by definition, atheists believe that natural causes can account for the whole of reality - including the nature of the infinite, the ultimate source of the material world, consciousness, and the sustaining reality of being. Smith's argument is flawed and fallacious because he fails to acknowledge the fact that atheists' belief is necessarily shifted onto materialism.
Smith asserts that faith is "irrational" and that any appeals to faith are "unacceptable".
Theists are now in the position to insist that Smith carries the logical burden of these assertions to its full conclusion. Is it true that God does not exist and that an intelligent agent was NOT the cause of the material Universe? Is it true that our existence was not intentional? Is it true that the Universe has no inherent meaning? Are Smith's conclusions that "We may state, with certainty, that God does not exist", true?
According to Smith's own criteria, all of these statements are "unacceptable" and "irrational". Due to the fact that human beings do not possess an infallible knowledge of everything, such assertions must necessarily be grounded in faith.
A mathematically ordered Universe which happened to become aware of itself, and which gave rise to friendship, love and spiritual creativity is not a good sign that the Universe is purposeless and that our existence was not intentional.
Indeed, the fact that something exists, rather than nothing at all, is also not a good sign that the Infinite is inherently meaningless.
In his chapter 'Reason Verses Faith', Smith says: "Scratch the surface of a Christian, and you find an agnostic." But Smith has got it the wrong way round. The difference between theists and atheists is that theists wholeheartedly acknowledge the necessity of faith.
With regard to theistic faith, if the source of the material Universe possessed intelligence which exists beyond the framework of science, then how can theists be expected to "prove" His existence? 'Faith' is the key - for every human being alive.
The truth is that if you scratch the surface of an atheist who denies 'belief' (such as Smith), then you find an agnostic. If the atheist persists in denying the necessity of 'belief' (such as Smith), then I'm afraid you find an irrational human being.
In his Chapter 'The Skepticism of Faith", Smith equates belief in God with belief in Santa Claus, and claims that you cannot dis-prove the existence of Santa Claus equally as much as you cannot dis-prove the existence of God. If Smith truly sees 'Santa Claus' on an equal level to the existence of the Infinite and deep spiritual fulfilment, then Smith has neatly exhibited how defective and shallow his perspective on theism and reality actually is.
Smith fails to appreciate the fact that the Bible is a totally different type of book to a scientific literal text book, and he approaches every passage literally and concludes that the text is "irrational". His appreciation and knowledge about any kind of spirituality, depth, or theistic faith is completely defective, and his conclusions are frankly illogical. Any arguments which Smith sets against Christianity, he targets the most extreme, fundamentalist and un-worldy Christians you could imagine. If Smith sincerely believes that all theists and Christians are as portrayed, then it merely reveals Smith's narrow minded and ideological outlook on reality.
Throughout the Chapters which contain a dialogue between a skeptic and an 'antiskeptic', Smith always rigs the dialogue so that the antiskeptic always ends up losing the argument. This method of deriding an opposing belief reveals spinelessness and pre-meditated fallacies.
In short, the very heart and grounding of Smith's case against God is flawed and deeply fallacious. Smith's 'Atheism' is ideological and emotional to the core, but what makes it all the more incredible and disgraceful, is Smith's outright denial of the necessity of faith.
And people say that Atheism is freedom from dogma? When are adherents of Smith going to open their eyes?

Just terrible. Using zero logic and the usual if I were God fallacies.
Lets see
1 If George were God he would end suffering
2 Suffering exists
3 Therefore, George is not God
--end of book

This is why hard atheists are effectively zero percentage of the population throughout all of history. They have not one good argument and the fact that they think these ARE arguments and not just pathetic tripe is actually astonishing. At the very least you would have to be agnostic but once you become an atheist you have truly revealed yourself as devoid of logical thought..not capable of seeing you have no point.

Also...
Failed probability though right? Must be. You accept 10 to the 40000th power for DNA and 120 places to the right of the decimal point for a stable universe? Thats believing in Magic pal and you are trying to convince us that there is no bias affecting your magical belief that the universe brought forth conscious beings that can see, smell, hear, observe, and understand it? Pick up 40 coins and have them all land on heads over and over again and them explain to us the origin of Cognitive Dissonance that allows you to accept we just popped out of nothing and created ourselves. Where the case for that--I guess it not included in the book?

All of mankind throughout history is crazy and George has cracked the secrets to reality. You guys just kill me with this little dog and pony show, pretending that the entire human race is not against you.

Read this book it you want to live your life logically and in peace rather than be peer pressured by others to follow an old historic faith blindly with no tangible evidence of such a being in the sky who punishes you for believing otherwise. Always strive to ask questions and be skeptical of everything rather than just believe without a doubt.