Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith

[Alexmahone]

Just wondering if any of you have read this book. It was originally published in 1979. It was recently reissued with a foreword by Lawrence Krauss.

Some snippets:

He defines theist as someone who believes that a god exists. An atheist is anyone who is not a theist. There is no third position.

Agnosticism is commonly used as a refuge for those who wish to escape the stigma of atheism...

So true, lol.

There are 2 kinds of atheists: implicit atheists and explicit atheists. Implicit atheists may be people who are unfamiliar with theism but have not explicitly rejected the existence of god. Little children are implicit atheists. Explicit atheists believe there is no god.

My favorite line from the book so far:

This book is not a critique of theism plus a defense of atheism: the critique of theism is the defense of atheism.

[Sal]

I think it was the first or 2nd atheist book I read. The other book being Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker.

[Brian37]

Just wondering if any of you have read this book. It was originally published in 1979. It was recently reissued with a foreword by Lawrence Krauss.

Some snippets:

He defines theist as someone who believes that a god exists. An atheist is anyone who is not a theist. There is no third position.

Agnosticism is commonly used as a refuge for those who wish to escape the stigma of atheism...

So true, lol.

There are 2 kinds of atheists: implicit atheists and explicit atheists. Implicit atheists may be people who are unfamiliar with theism but have not explicitly rejected the existence of god. Little children are implicit atheists. Explicit atheists believe there is no god.

My favorite line from the book so far:

This book is not a critique of theism plus a defense of atheism: the critique of theism is the defense of atheism.

No but my two most favorite books are not by the "Four Horsemen".

1. Victor Stenger, "God, The Failed Hypothesis"

2. Victor Stenger, " The New Atheism"

I love the second one listed the most. In it he argues there is no "separate but equal" when it comes to religion and science. He also in later chapters explains that you can find similar moral motifs in every religion, such of that of giving and charity. That says to me, our morality isn't in old mythology, but in our evolution.

But I just looked him up. If he valued Ayn Rand, that is where you lost me. I think libertarians get social issues right, but are even worse on economics than the GOP. I hate Ayn Rand. And no, that does not mean I support Che or Castro either.

[Succubus]

I bought the thing in hardback when it was first released but I found it uranium heavy, I'm pretty sure I chucked it. As per your quote:

This book is not a critique of theism plus a defense of atheism: the critique of theism is the defense of atheism.

From memory the whole thing reads this way. While the prose is hardly impenetrable it certainly isn’t easy to absorb.

[Silver]

Never read anything by the guy. Only a couple times in my life have I read atheistic related material. First was Robert Green Ingersoll's agnostic oratory works and then a few years back was a book by Sam Harris and one by Dawkins.

[brewer]

Never read a book about atheism. I'm told they never get it quite right.

[Ravenshire]

Never read a book about atheism. I'm told they never get it quite right.

Judging by the tens of thousands of schisms, large and small, within religion I have to say that the atheist authors seem to have gotten closer to "right" than any of the holy book scribblers ever managed.

[Alexmahone]

I bought the thing in hardback when it was first released but I found it uranium heavy, I'm pretty sure I chucked it. As per your quote:

This book is not a critique of theism plus a defense of atheism: the critique of theism is the defense of atheism.

From memory the whole thing reads this way. While the prose is hardly impenetrable it certainly isn’t easy to absorb.

Well, he does consider himself a philosopher. 

From the intro:

As a philosopher, I am continually amazed by the credence given to religious claims in the intellectual community...

I must say that I like his prose.

[Angrboda]

I read it a long time ago. He's quite emphatic, if I remember rightly, and makes a large turn towards objectivism in mid-book.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

For my money, the Bible remains the strongest argument against theism that can be imagined.

Boru