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.

Excellent book, Very convincing, well written, quite easy to understand but some parts are a little vague... Pass it around your local church.

This book mainly tries to show , mostly christian belief, that belief in a god is irrational. It does this by reducing christain belief into the theistic agnostic position.. ie I believe in a god but i have no evidence nor do i have any idea what this god is like... In a nutshell anyways..

This book goes step by step on what an educated atheist might say and then what a theist might say... Although it is not in dialog form... It is just very systematic...

Ive read this book twice and wish i had it here with me now so that i could read it again... Its thick and packs a punch...

I would also recommend Thomas Pains, The Age of Reason ... and of course David Humes, Dialogues concerning natural religion although that book is quite technical if you are not familiar with Hume... Just read this book..

I know this won't seem like much of a compliment to him, but I am not of the opinion that Smith's arguments in Atheism: The Case Against God are bad arguments as much as they are erroneous ones. Granted he did a good job of defining Atheism and exposing many of the problems in Aquinas' arguments as well as Copleston's. It's only when he starts making arguments of his own, particularly the "metaphysical primary" nonsense, that things start going off the rails.

For Smith, the universe as a whole is an irreducible primary, and as such, we cannot ask why it exists, at all, under any circumstances. If we were to ask for an explanation of the natural universe, we would in effect be asking for an explanation of that which sets the context in which explanation is possible, so the concept of explanation cannot legitimately be extended to the universe as a whole.

This kind of thinking assumes that the natural universe is noting more than an explanatory power. That it has no being of its own, and exists only to provide the context in which explanation is possible. It is in fact a real existing thing, and as a real existing thing it not only requires but demands explanation.

Smith's argument reeks of Ayn Rand, particularly her following quote:

"Any natural phenomenon, i.e.., any event which occurs without human participation, is the metaphysically given, and could not have occurred differently or failed to occur..."

As an example, she says: "a flood occurring in an uninhabited land, is the metaphysically given..."

Does this mean we cannot ask why the flood occurred? Does it mean the flood, in reality, has no reason why it occurred? Or are we simply to accept as an answer to this question, "The flood occurred because it is"? Smith seems to think so, for he has given the same answer for the universe as a whole: "The universe is because it is".

By the logic of this kind of thinking...we should never ask the reason for anything! Evolution? Natural selection? Don't even bother with either of them. the simple truth is, things just are as they are, it's a metaphysically given.

This kind of thinking is actually closer to faith thinking than anything in the realm of science. The natural universe just is, it just exists, and who are mere mortals like you and I to question that?

Another problem I have with this book is that numerous statements such as, just to give one example, "Everything exists necessarily" are asserted totally without proof. And as such, I guess we just have to take his word for it.

It also implies that there is no chance or randomness in nature or in the universe which is scientifically absurd. If Smith believes that we can never ask questions regarding "metaphysical primaries", I would love to know what he thinks quantum physicists are doing with their grant money.

Atheism is the rage these days, thanks largely to new media-savvy champions who've come to be known as proponents of the "New Atheism." New Atheism takes its cue (and presumably its name) from its insistence that religious claims are incompatible with evolutionary ones and hence immediately suspect, and that religious belief leads to intolerance and violence. Many commentators--sympathetic as well as critical--have pointed out there's not a whole lot of evidence that New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens have much familiarity with traditional philosophical and theological arguments for God. This ignorance both creates serious holes in the arguments but also sometimes leads to them re-inventing wheels and duplicating old (and discredited) arguments.

That's why a reading of the New Atheists really ought to be complemented by Atheism: The Case Against God, a work written by "old atheist" George Smith. Smith clearly knows the philosophical and theological tradition, and he addresses himself to a refutation of that tradition's variety of arguments for the existence of God. He critically examines, for example, both Anselm's ontological argument, Thomas Aquinas' famous Quinquae Viae, and the ever-popular argument(s) from design. He does close linguistic analysis of words such as "God" and "Being," and concludes that they literally make no sense. He provides a historical overview of the classic debate of faith and reason, and he provides his own philosophical analysis. He insists that agnosticism is simply a variety of atheism (and also, interestingly, a variety of theism, depending upon how it's spun). And he concludes with a criticism of theism based on morality that avoids the shrillness and over-generalization too frequently indulged in by the New Atheists (especially Dawkins and Hitchens).

This isn't to say that Smith provides an overwhelmingly compelling "case against God." Each reader will have to weigh his arguments and come to his or her own reasoned conclusions. But what Smith HAS done is to give us a very strong, very readable, and eminently rational argument for atheism that, unlike New Atheism proponents, takes on precisely the issues that need taking on. Highly recommended.

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.

SUM STANK AND I WANT SUM, UP IN THEM GUTS
HUGGIES UND SMICKIES BORN TO B A BOOD BOY SNIVVLE SNAVVLE SNIGGLA SNEET
HOWDY
VAR YIST UN FLAGGEN FILM A SOR DER MOVIE TEH REEPPING AND IT TWERENT NEOH DALLET NO NO GAL, HAR! HAR! HAR! THIS WAS A SILLY WILLY BOOKY WOOKYU UND KRISIUN IST MINE FREUND, HERR BUBER!!! WE farney farney farney MADE LOVE TO METAL LORDS AMON UND AMRTH PIPP FLUG BUG GIBT MER BAK EIN COOKIE GARREN, DAS IS ZERE SHEISSE

GUTTEN MORGEN KLASSE, DIE KATZIE IST SHON ICH TELL YOU BISHES ME UN D KRISIUN WAR WILL HED R BUCKY BLALZ UP fungy bungyTE NUTTY BUNNMY BREADY FLUFLLY WIBBLE WOBBLE BOOBIE WOOBIE ERE

es IST hella TITE. I drink Moy OWN PEE PEE by DER WAY das boKKY DAS BOOT SUCKED

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.

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 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.

This book has been in print long enough to be considered a classic skeptic piece of literature, but it still sets the bar for all similar texts. While this book, if read seriously, cannot force a change in belief, it WILL force thinking to occur. Any Christian simply cannot coherently argue with Smith's facts, and must resort to "faith" if he chooses to do so.

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.

Smith's book has become somewhat of an icon nowadays. Its arguments are simply stated, and are clearly written to appeal to those who have no philosophical background. This, however, is their strength rather than their weakness. Smith takes the basic arguments for God, those made most often by theists and theistic writers, and desimates them in a literary, but thorough, way. While this book cannot be construed to be academic philoosphically speaking, it is philosophical in its approach. It considers and argument and then takes each of its premises into consideration. It is literary in the sense that Smith does not seem to hide his frustration in the fact that these worn-out arguments for God are still being flung around. This book is not one which people who have come to doubt their belief in God might turn to, but rather is one which those who no longer doubt that they disbelieve will turn to, to better understand their atheistic views.

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.

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.

Smith does a fine job of attacking theism (mostly Christianity) by showing that the very belief in God is irrational both intellectually and philosophically. After finishing it, I'm wondering what purpose such a book serves.

The problem is that Smith essentially addresses the "God/No God" argument, yet any potential reader will have already reached their own answer to this question before reading this book. So depending on the reader, this book is merely preaching to the choir, or it is serving as fodder for those who insist that Atheists are smug religious bigots who think they are intellectually superior to their theistic neighbors. Neither serve any positive value.

Smith uses sound logic when arguing against faith; but those on the other side of the argument tend to be immune from the very logic Smith employs. So again, his efforts are rendered moot. At times Smith seems somewhat pedantic to me. For example, early on in the book he spends some time and effort to explain why the idea of Agnosticism is not a logically sound position. While I agree with his conclusion, it seems somewhat trivial.

I'm sure that I'm at least partially responsible for not thoroughly enjoying Smith's book. The title clearly states that Smith intends to make his case against God - and then I go and criticize him for doing just that. The title alone should have told me all I needed to know; only pick this book up if you are looking for some self validation. Mea culpa.

If common sense doesn't convince a person that there is no God, and if reading the Bible does not convince somebody that there is no God, then surely this book is not going to convince somebody that there is no God. Given that this was the author's sole purpose, there really isn't much more to comment on.

I prefer authors like Sam Harris - they spend less time debating positions which nobody is willing to give up, and more time discussing the societal issues that arise when people believing what they believe.

Even though it's been three years since I've read Mr. Smith's book. I have to say that it never ceases to amaze me how solid his ideas are, and how easy they are to understand. His language makes the book a true joy to read. I especialy liked the chapter on the watchmaker analogy. Buy all his books. You won't be disappointed.

Even though it's been three years since I've read Mr. Smith's book. I have to say that it never ceases to amaze me how solid his ideas are, and how easy they are to understand. His language makes the book a true joy to read. I especialy liked the chapter on the watchmaker analogy. Buy all his books. You won't be disappointed.

Atheism: The Case Against God By George H Smith would probably be better titled, George H Smith's Case against God, or how about we drop the H (so as not to confuse him with the SF author of the same name) and just call it, George Smith's Case Against God. There is good reason to do this. The book is certainly classed as a somewhat difficult read - however this is not because readers are too lazy to use a dictionary but because it is more about trying to get into Smith's own personal opinions which he fronts as philosophy, logic or science. You are very much going to be reading, what is by and large, some guy's thoughts on the topic of God. First of all, before we ask the question, who or what is God, how about we ask who or what is George H. Smith? Well apparently he is a libertarian who wrote some little known books except for this one. He is a relatively unknown, but among Atheists the book is praised, but is it landmark material worthy of establishing the author as a major theologian? Yet the writer would probably rescind at such a classification. He calls it philosophy, not theology. Yet clearly we could argue that what we are reading is theology. It is Smith's study of the nature of God and religious truth, a rational inquiry into religious questions, even if he does end up with many negatives. The work can only attempt to addresses a portion of the important theological assertions made in the past 3500 years or so between Judaism and Christianity. The questions Smith deems fit for analysis, are the ones he thinks are important and that he can refute to produce a Case against God. There is bound to be some `lawyering' here, after all Smith only really argues himself or his chosen topics. Granted, Smith sometimes does offer the very odd rebuttal to his own statement, but never as a conclusion. Care should be taken to check references and the reader should ask questions about the context in which he quotes something or somebody. There are no theologians present to debate him. Instead he is satisfied to present his entire case, the whole lot, by sitting himself on the witness stand without a prosecutor even present. One could dispute that the very notion of arguing something that isn't even defined is just unreasonable and Smith may be doing just that. Smith is sometimes very elusive in his choice of descriptions. For example he never once mentions that Christians believe that God is a `man' called Jesus Christ. The very existence of the identification of Jesus being `Man' and God causes enormous problems when he argues completely in the realm of the Supernatural, which is the bases for his argument for the first half of Part One - Atheism And God. Although the philosophical points he raises are important, Christians consider themselves describing a real God on Earth in the form of a Man. So there is a whole theological work there in Christianity that doesn't get the Smith treatment. He does a good introduction though, some interesting points about the suppression of Atheist legal rights. He talks about Huxley's agnosticism but I think he tries to twist out what Huxley doesn't say. I don't think Huxley claimed to be an Atheist but Smith paints a picture that Huxley is, even though Huxley even calls himself an agnostic. Smith also pushes the idea that Atheists can not be taught `what is God' because God is unknowable, yet even a child could understand the teachings of Jesus Christ which are not particularly difficult or even illusive. Christianity actually teaches that eventually we can know everything there is to know about God. 1Co 13:12 "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." Even if you don't believe in that or think it can not be verified, the point is that the argument is there for it, but Smith doesn't mention that these counterpoints exist. For this reason you would be pretty naïve to draw conclusions just based on this work alone.

Smith does make a good case for the contradictions between omniscient and omnipotent but one must remember that this terms are used very carefully in Christianity and do have limited meanings. For example a Catholic may be asked if they believe God to be omnipotent and may reply yes, but the Magisterium would have a restricted teaching based on the studies of Saint Thomas Aquinas in his work `The Summa Theologica' which is referenced in the Catechism. So we really need to double-check if what Smith is forwarding is a Catholic Church position or some Protestant denominations or a Muslim one and this is where we come across a serious flaw in the body of work. It appears that Smith may be creating his very own personal idea of God and then blasting it down. That can not be understated. He often jumps between Jew, Catholic and Protestant, without identifying which teaching is from which group, compiling a Quasi-Jewish-Catholic-Protestant-hybrid-God that isn't really the God described by any of the three. His biggest problem though is found in his views on theodicy which tries to explain why evil exists in the world with an omnibenevolent God. Apart from the fact the word is not even used by the Catholic church, found in only one reformation writing, here Smith goes at great lengths to try and establish that God is the creator of evil and not mankind's free-will choice to commit evil. A lot of it is straw man. While he wants to put evil firmly on God's lap he is faced with the contradiction that the world we live in today represents the theist free-will view and not his own. For example in court we do not blame the evil actions of someone on God. We blame the person who committed the act of evil. Both Christians and Jews do this. Smith sometimes takes a comment made by a member of a clergy that does not reflect the actual church position and builds his case around the statement that is objectionable within the framework to begin with. A good instance of his straw man approach can be found with regards to his critic of the contents of an article in The New York Times of September 11, 1950, referring to the Korean War and the alleged statements made by Monsignor William T. Greene.

The Cosmological Argument is very important. Although Smith correctly asserts that there is difficultly in addressing the issue of the first cause being intelligent, his personal atheist opinions of trashing any idea that might even come remotely close to establishing a God, backfire horribly in the whole of Part 3. Smith tries to prove an actual infinite cause and effect for the Universe without a first cause. Smith covers a lot pages (nearly quarter of his book) to debunk the first cause, which should have been a simple refutation according to him. Unfortunately his rational claims to infinite cause and effect are simply trashed by NASA which teaches that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. It looks like Smith was just betting on the Big Bang theory being wrong for that whole argument. In the final analyses he shows what the Church has been claiming since the beginning, that it makes statements based on faith and tradition and not science. It doesn't point to the air. It usually points to Jesus Christ. While he is absolutely right, that the atheistic dogma of "I have no belief" is paramount to atheism, the onus was never on Smith is try and disprove God. All he has to do is shut up and quote science. Instead he tries to present Atheism as a science and nothing could be more easily demonstrated as inherently flawed. Atheistic science is not scientific and never has been scientific. The theist doesn't even have to forward their belief to refute this book. They only need to question Atheism masked as science. If it is not scientific then Atheism is about as valid as the theology it attempts to debunk. Still though this book remains vital reading but is somewhat aged and scientifically / theologically defective.

As a seasoned atheist, I wasn't expecting to learn too much from this book, being that it is indeed rather dated. I have already read Harris's and Dawkins' books, both of which I felt were excellent. However, unlike the other two atheistic celebrities, Smith's book argues its point without an ounce of sarcasm. There is none of the arrogance that is difficult for most intellectuals to escape. As such, it comes off as more professional.

This, however, is not what makes the book rise above its more modern counterparts. Although I already know most of the arguments in favor of atheism and against theism, I am still surprised to have come out of reading this book having learned something. Smith really covers all of the bases - he does not leave any arguments unaddressed. The only disadvantage lies in the fact that our knowledge of evolutionary biology and quantum physics bring us a clearer understanding of reality (and, consequently, firmer rebuttals against theistic arguments) than Smith could have in the late 70's/early 80's.

One particular chapter that emphasizes just how thoroughly Smith covers all of his bases addresses radical skepticism, a notion that we cannot ever receive true knowledge or attain complete certainty about the nature of the universe, because there is no way of knowing our senses are giving us accurate information. The premise behind this is that Christians will try to show that because of this, we all use "faith" in how we garner understanding of the world, thusly showing that "faith" is equally as reliable in accepting theistic notions. Smith completely knocks down the notion of radical (or, as he calls it, "universal") skepticism.

This book may not be of much use to a very knowledgeable atheist, for it may not teach him or her very much. However, this is an excellent read for not only amateur atheists, but it possesses arguments that should be very seriously considered by Christians (theologians and laymen alike), to give them a very clear understanding of what a concept of atheism really entails.