Reddit reviews Atheism: The Case Against God (The Skeptic's Bookshelf)
We found 18 Reddit comments about Atheism: The Case Against God (The Skeptic's Bookshelf). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Libertarian Point of Views
Colin Howson – Objecting to God
George H. Smith – Atheism: The Case Against God
Graham Oppy – Arguing about Gods
Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God
Herman Philipse – God in the Age of Science
J. L. Mackie – The Miracle of Theism
Jordan Sobel – Logic and Theism
Nicholas Everitt – The Non-Existence of God
Richard Gale – On the Nature and Existence of God
Robin Le Poidevin – Arguing for Atheism
Andrew Melnyk – A Physicalist Manifesto
I remember this being used on usenet back in the day, so I think it dates to at least to the 90's.
Starting there, the oldest I found with a quick bit of googling on groups was 1990 (though, as always, people tend to use these in different ways) which references this book, published 1974, which according to this review does seem to use that definition.
>A lot of people in this thread split hairs in terms of burden of proof
Because the burden of proof is critically important to the conversation and something you don't seem to be very cognizant of. I'd suggest reading either Smith's Why Atheism or Atheism: The Case Against God to understand why the burden of proof is so essentially integral to the case of atheism as more rational than theism. You could learn a lot by reading some articles on the subject as well, if you haven't already.
>all those arguments are moot for the simple fact that its not possible to know either way.
Alright. You're misunderstanding atheism/theism. "Theism," semantically, means a "belief in God," yes? Belief and knowledge or distinctly different. Nobody is claiming to know God doesn't exist as an atheist categorically. God, as a concept, is non-falsifiable. Further, God is so subjectively and arbitrarily defined that it is nearly impossible to know if we're even talking about the same concept.
However, what you can do is falsify a particular notion of God, in which case it is possible to know and reasonable to believe a particular notion or definition of God can not exist. For example, the philophical "God of the philosophers" which is touted as all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving by definition is logically inconsistent.
Just as I know a married bachelor does not exist, I know a certain type of God does not exist because the mere concept is logically incoherent and intrinsically meaningless. I can expound upon my argument for these certain types of Gods if you so desire.
Prima facie it sounds like you merely do not understand the definitions of atheism, agnosticism, burden of proof, and knowledge to a degree where you can be justified in making the claim you make in your title. While I feel very confident in arguing that you are wrong, I think you would greatly benefit by researching all of these topics. Here is a great video to get you started. Here is a good article on the burden of proof and how it is incredibly important to understand. If you really want to understand the topic, read either (preferably the first) of the books I highlighted earlier. Here and here are articles contrasting atheism and agnosticism.
I would recommend staying away from the polemics. Authors like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris all have books worth reading, but not really if you want a primer on atheistic alternatives in the areas of worldview, ethics, etc. I will say that Dawkins's earlier works on science would be good, but God Delusion is not an exposition of an atheistic worldview, but rather an attack on religion, and a messy, at times ignorant and oversimplified one at that (I bet I'll get crucified for saying that). As one religious studies student to another, it is a book that gets awfully frustrating every time you realize that he has a horrible grasp of the relevant data.
Books that would be really great to read:
George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God is an approachable critique of some of the more popular arguments for God's existence.
Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Brief Insight is a really good and thorough survey of the explanation, arguments, history, and ethics of atheism.
Greg Epstein's Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe really gets into where someone goes once he/she has already concluded that God doesn't exist. He looks at how one builds a nonreligious life of meaning. Epstein is definitely in the "friendly atheist" category. As the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard (strange, oxymoronic titles aside) he has done a great deal of work with the Pluralism Project in their School of Divinity. He has even worked with inter-religious groups like the InterFaith Youth Core.
A long, but very much worth the time and highly recommended book is Jennifer Michael Hecht's Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson. In it, she goes very thoroughly through the long history of religious skepticism. She looks at the lives and questions of philosophers, scientists, poets, politicians, even some religious figures who have gone through the "dark night of the soul." This is a book that I think every atheist should read to learn that religious folks aren't the only ones with a long and storied tradition. It is a good grounding in history for secularists.
>I need to start reading books again instead of comments.
No argument there.
George H Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God
>I am mad at myself for not being this analytic about this earlier in my life
I had this exact feeling.
So one thing to realize is that this process takes time I mean for FSM sake u lived a lot with this Idea.keep reading whatever you do keep reading.
some sources or ideas that were helpful to me:
keep fear away and ...good luck !
>Atheism is not a religion.
Really?
>We have no doctrine.
I'm almost positive that that's not the case.
>No creed.
From PZ Myers himself.
>No hymns.
Really? Are you so very certain?
So...are you positive that atheism has not taken on all the trappings of a religion? I would say you even have apostles - Dawkins, Hitchins, Harris.
Finally - I would urge you to look up state atheism and then tell me that certain people didn't kill in the name of atheism.
George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God.
I strongly recommend the following:
http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X
As a bonus, I've found it in every library I've checked, so there's a good chance you can just check it out.
I really think that The Case Against God, by George H Smith is exactly what you're looking for.
- http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X -
A very clear and detailed summary of the arguments.
> What is a good beginner's book for philo of religion?
A rather gentle introduction is "Arguing for Atheism - An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion" by Rob Le Poidevin (1996).
A basic introduction is "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith (1979)"
I would suggest reading a more primary sources and less internet.
This is where I started probably before you were even born:
http://amzn.com/087975124X
Dawkins reiterates Smith's agnostic vs atheist debate over 30 years later here:
http://amzn.com/0618918248
This is logic and language. If you say you haven't decided on a political party you are a non-Republican. If you say you haven't decided on God you are a non-Theist. Because of history, unlike non-Republican we have a word for non-Theist called atheist.
Sure, we'll help you with your religion homework.
>What made you initially reject the belief in any divine figure?
I didn't. I was born an atheist, and my parents had me instructed me in religion because they assumed that it was an easy way to teach me about morality. After a long, sad journey through two religions, I came across some atheist apologetics that were very convincing and difficult to ignore.
As I have gotten older, I have slowly come to realize that everyone has a different definition for what God is supposed to be, and none of them make any sense. The more I listened to people try to describe what their idea of God was supposed to be, it just seemed more silly and futile by the day. But this book right here helped a lot, too.
>Was this decision based on your experience with your prior religion (if you belonged to one)?
I belonged to two religions - closely related religions, but different. My abandonment of God was an intellectual decision, not an emotional one. But in a way, I guess you could say that my experience with religion did sort of push me away: one proved unsatisfying, and the other didn't do any better. And when a logical, philosophical approach presented itself, I found it much more fulfilling.
>Have there ever been times when you believed again temporarily? See "There are no atheists in a foxhole."
No. The arguments posited in the book I linked above are very, very convincing. While I suppose anything is possible, I just can't envision a situation in which I'd believe again. I think most people who were once believers, and become atheists for intellectual reasons, become more firm with time.
That's not to say that I am not occasionally trapped by language. I still refer to "God" in conversation in a colloquial sense (God willing, God bless you, God dammit why can't you people learn to drive), etc. It's hard to let go of those habits.
Atheism: The Case Against God by George Hamilton Smith
It was written over 30 years ago and puts to words many of my feelings better than other books I've read.
I would also add The True Believer by Eric Hoffer as it explains the nature of believers whether they believe in Christianity or Communism or whatever.
Atheism: The Case Against God by George Smith is a much stronger case for atheism, particularly chapter 3. I highly recommend it. http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X
Don't get The God Delusion. I seriously don't understand why people always recommend Dawkins to thiests. I think non-theists get much more out of his books.
Read this or this. I have The God Delusion and was not satisfied with it:
http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302021802&sr=1-1
(Mind you this 2nd book's title is a bit hyperbolic, its rather the argument for the abrahamic religions (Xtianity/Judaism/Islam) but he goes into detail on the extent of the evidence for those vs. other religions etc.
Removed comment posted by /u/bdw9000 at 07/14/14 04:55:11:
> For a more substantive challenge, I'd recommend these:
>
> A specific case against believing in the resurrection (and miracles in general): http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-And-Case-Against-Christ/dp/1616145811/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405313666&sr=8-1&keywords=atheism+mccormick
>
> A general case against theism/religion: http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405313634&sr=8-1&keywords=atheism+smith
... in response to submission What's a good book promoting atheism? I've tried a few common suggestions, and they haven't impressed me. posted by /u/UnlikelySoccerStar at 06/29/14 05:47:55:
> So, I realized that all my experience with atheist apologetics so far has been in the context of Christian apologetic works. Author brings up argument A, refutes it. I'm looking to give the other sides arguments a chance on it's own terms.
>
>
> The thing is, I've tried a few already. I read a good chunk of 'God is not Great' by Christopher Hitchens and a decent chunk of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. In both instances I gave up, because I found the arguments being presented to be easily defeated, and after a hundred pages I hadn't encountered anything new or interesting.
>
>
> So I'm asking for something a little different. I'm pretty burnt out on the whole 'New Atheism' movement, so I'd prefer a book that approaches the problem from a historical or philosophical angle.
>
>
> Thanks and hope you are all doing well.
Atheism: The Case Against God