Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith

[KarlVonMox]

I highly recommend all atheists pick up this book and read it. This is one of the most important books, if not the MOST important book, I have ever read in my life about atheism.

I believe that a big mistake many atheists make when they talk to theists about their religion is they automatically accept "God" as a rational concept with a solid logical framework. The debate then shifts to wether or not this "God" does/does not exist, and evidence (or lack thereof) to support it.

Essentially what this book makes you realize is that the ultimate downfall of theism is the simple fact that the concept of "God" is self-contradictory, incoherent, and vacuous. Asking the theist to define what "God" is makes you realize that they cant answer the question in any satisfactory way. They themselves do not really know what they believe in.

Its like me saying "I believe in a blark", but when asked what the blark is, I say "I dont know - it is unknowable", thereby believing in something that is completely devoid of any content. Many religions will try to assign attributes to the "God" concept to escape this hole, but as Smith points out, these attempts at defining what God is always fail to rid the concept of agnosticism and underlying contradictions and inconsistencies.

This is why I feel comfortable saying with 100% certainty that God does not exist. Because the word "God" cannot be defined, and it is indistinguishable from nothingness.

These few paragraphs that I wrote don't do the book justice.

[freethinker44]

I agree 100%. In my own spiritual "quest", if you want to call it that, I am comfortable with saying that god is impossible, but when I am talking to other people about the subject, saying this would be meaningless unless you start from their perspective and work your way outward. So I always start by assuming god exists and is logical and then simply try to apply the concept, it always fails. I know the god concept is impossible in reality but it is pointless to begin a conversation like that with someone who believes it is possible unless you start at their level.

[KarlVonMox]

I agree 100%. In my own spiritual "quest", if you want to call it that, I am comfortable with saying that god is impossible, but when I am talking to other people about the subject, saying this would be meaningless unless you start from their perspective and work your way outward. So I always start by assuming god exists and is logical and then simply try to apply the concept, it always fails. I know the god concept is impossible in reality but it is pointless to begin a conversation like that with someone who believes it is possible unless you start at their level.

While I understand where you are coming from, I respectfully disagree.

Why? Because definitions are all-important when you are talking about something. Without defining exactly what you are talking about, the conversation ceases to have any meaning or content.

Smith makes this exact point, consider this exchange:

Mr. Jones: "An unie exists"
Mr. White: "Prove it"
Mr. Jones: "It has rained for three consecutive days - that is my proof"

You see the problem here? The blame lies entirely with Mr. White, because he hasn't told Mr. Jones to specify what a unie is, therefore his demand for proof is premature.

This is why one must first ask what God is. When the theist inevitably fails at this task, the conversation has to stop (and atheism wins by default). The theist literally does not know what he is talking about.

[Nepenthe]

I liked his book and it's a decent basic intro' to atheism, but his Ayn Rand worship is embarassing.