Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Atheism: The Case Against God

3.97 of 5 stars 3.97 · rating details · 1,197 ratings · 54 reviews

Does a god exist? This question has undoubtedly been asked, in one form or another, since man has had the ability to communicate. . . Thousands of volumes have been written on the subject of a god, and the vast majority have answered the questions with a resounding 'Yes!' "

"You are about to read a minority viewpoint."

With this intriguing introduction, George H. Smith sets...more

Paperback, 355 pages

Published September 1st 1979 by Prometheus Books

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris

Notable Atheist Books

28th out of 225 books — 541 voters

The Invention of Religion by Alexander Drake

Different Takes on Religion & Spirituality

150th out of 381 books — 440 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 2,804)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Sep 27, 2011 Ryan rated it 4 of 5 stars

Several of the hosts and guests on Point of Inquiry (one of my favorite podcasts) refer to this as The Book. After reading it, I can see why. Smith boldly states his aim early on: "It is not my purpose to convert people to atheism...but to demonstrate that the belief in God is irrational to the point of absurdity. If a person wishes to continue believing in a god, that is his prerogative, but he can no longer excuse his belief in the name of reason and moral necessity." Using amazingly clear log...more

3 likes · like · see review

Jun 24, 2011 Jorge rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: atheism-religion

Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith

"Atheism: The Case Against God" is an accessible, scholarly philosophical book that makes compelling arguments against the concept of a supreme being. It's a book that offers cogent arguments to the question of god() in a logical manner. This 355-page book is composed of the following four parts: 1. Atheism and God, 2. Reason, Faith and Revelation, 3. The Arguments for God, and 4. God: The Practical Consequences.

Positives:

1. A thorough, well-wri...more

like · see review

Dec 01, 2009 Aurochz rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy, atheism

The best book on the subject and the one I would recommend to a curious theist friend if I had one.

The reasons being this is the only book, by an atheist about atheism that systematically destroys all the philosophical arguments about god and gives and originates some of the best defenses of atheism yet. Unlike the new slew of atheist books that seem to only talk about the religion part of the god problem. Without really systematically refuting the underlying presupposition of it all or putting...more

1 like · like · see review

Aug 20, 2010 Jason Mills rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Atheists and theists...

Recommended to Jason by: Hmm. Shaker?

Shelves: non-fiction, philosophy

Smith's book dates from 1979. You might expect it to be peppered with scientific arguments that might now be out of date, but in fact he doesn't use any. Arguing that atheism is the default and remaining position if theism does not hold up, Smith spends the whole of his 300 pages hacking away at theism from a purely philosophical perspective.

This is a rigorous, trenchant attack on the evasions and smoke-clouds of theology. Although he focuses on christianity for cultural reasons, Smith's argumen...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 10, 2011 Mark Wilson rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: apologetics, atheism, philosophy

This is a profitable book for a Christian to read, as it presents an intelligent critique of theism. Unfortunately, I felt that the case against the Christian God never got as strong as I hoped, with the preference being to reduce Christian theism to be akin to generic "well, uh, I believe in something higher that this" variety theism. I wouls have liked him to have approached head on the concept that the Bible is God's self-revelation, and to have used how the Bible defines God, rather that nam...more

2 likes · like · see review

Oct 22, 2010 Steve rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: scepticism, favorites

More than 30 years before Dawkins penned his own bestseller, Atheism: The Case Against God was first published and went on to become one of the biggest selling atheist books of the twentieth century. Quite right too, as this excellent critique of theism is a magnificent testament to the power of logic. It's somewhat surprising to learn that author George H. Smith was still in his early 20s when he wrote it.

Concentrating on the philosophical arguments against God's existence, the deep intellectu...more

1 like · like · see review

Jul 04, 2011 Andy rated it 4 of 5 stars

Reading this book is not a light undertaking. Unlike the more cavalier works by Dawkins, Hitchins, Harris, and others of the "new atheism" movement, Smith takes the time to present a well defined set of arguments establishing the falsehood (or unintelligibility) of theism. After defining important terminology, covering some basics, and then laying to rest the hypothesis of theism, Smith goes on to address the issue of faith, the concept of miracles, the common arguments for theism (and their ref...more

like · see review

Sep 18, 2011 Jim rated it 5 of 5 stars

Smith does a good, but not great job refuting the case for god -- his thinking is sound and well-presented, but it should be tighter and more exhaustive. Smith wastes some precious type space on unnecessary vitriol, when he should be broadening the epistemological underpinnings of his arguments.
Even though Smith depends entirely on sound reasoning as the driving force of his arguments, he does take some liberties with unfounded leaps; they may not be meaningful, but these unfounded leaps have a...more

like · see review

Dec 08, 2008 Worthless Bum rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: atheism-scepticism

There are basically two ways in which one can argue against god and religion: either they are false or harmful. This book concerns itself with the former and in that capacity it is probably the best book ever written. It is unquestionably the best book I have ever read which takes the god-is-false approach to argue against god. Smith shows in simple, lucid reasoning how the notion of a god is an ill conceived and incoherent mish mash of purely irrational nonsense. It is difficult to conceive how...more

3 likes · like · see review

Sep 06, 2011 L rated it 5 of 5 stars

It was this book, read when I was 19, that put a name to what I'd been feeling for two years. Smith labeled my beliefs that I had only until that point thought were "lacks" of beliefs, intangible and unknowable. This book did nothing to "sway" or "lure" me; I knew what I was feeling long before this. I just didn't have a definitive name for it. I exhaled deeply when I read that others felt the same way, even though I didn't "come out" until thirteen years later. This little book will always have...more

1 like · like · see review

May 08, 2013 Artiom Karsiuk rated it 3 of 5 stars

This book is a mindfuck and a half.
Having gotten that out of the way, let me explain why. You know how LEGO toys have these convenient age ranges/suggestions on their boxes? This book should most definitely have an IQ sticker on it saying "120 or above". You see, I used to consider myself a bright guy. I did. Not an intellectual by any stretch of the imagination, but, let's say, nine time out of ten I could tell apart clay and taffy. But this book was meant for a far more educated or, to put it...more

like · see review

May 19, 2010 Landon rated it 4 of 5 stars

Part One of this book is basically essential reading for people who want a clear understanding of how the debate about the existence of God should be framed. Smith does a good job defining the terms and setting the stage for the debate. His discussion of atheism and agnosticism is valuable, and he forcefully makes the point that the burden of proof is on the theist. He also has a pretty good discussion about the concept of God, and the importance of getting clear about the concept before we can...more Part One of this book is basically essential reading for people who want a clear understanding of how the debate about the existence of God should be framed. Smith does a good job defining the terms and setting the stage for the debate. His discussion of atheism and agnosticism is valuable, and he forcefully makes the point that the burden of proof is on the theist. He also has a pretty good discussion about the concept of God, and the importance of getting clear about the concept before we can talk intelligibly about whether or not God exists. This is a commonly recognized point among philosophers, but often times the lay person can be heard declaring that God exists, but when asked what he means by 'God' he throws up his hands and declares that it's a mystery. In that case, what is even being said when the words "God exists" are spoken? It's not clear that there is even a meaningful proposition being expressed, unless there is a determinate meaning for the word "God" (and, of course, a meaning for the word "exists").

The discussion of these issues is very well done in the book. From there, for the reaminder of Part One, Smith has a few missteps I think. He makes the point that theists who are agnostic about what God is like (i.e. those who can't tell you what God is after they tell you that God exists) have the problem of not actually expressing anything with their God-talk. Smith then examines how some people do talk about God, and he tries to collapse all of their talk about God into meaninglessness, so that they are stuck with the same problem as before. In other words, in order to escape the problem above, the theist has to say things about God, and Smith thinks that all of their attempts to say things about God are just different ways of saying that God is unintelligible and incomprehensible. In order to make this point he cites some historically important ideas, such as Aquinas' understanding of God-talk as analogical, and he shows that this doesn't really tell us anything about what God is like, so that the word "God" is still beyond our ability to understand. So far, so good. But Smith tries to do the same thing with the term "supernatural," with less success. When theists say that God is supernatural, it's natural to interpret them as saying that God is a disembodied mind--an intelligent immaterial person. Smith interprets "supernatural" to mean incomprehensible, which may be what some theists mean by the word, but it isn't what many others mean. This has the result of him only attacking and refuting one version of theism while under the impression that he has defeated all versions of theism. Similarly, he argues that it is meaningless to talk of God as "omnipotent" and "omniscient," and that these are simply misleading labels for more incomprehensibility. But in the past several decades in the philosophy literature there has been much more detailed discussion of what these words mean, and Smith's treatment of them is a bit superficial given the much more sophisticated treatments out there.

So far, I think that this is a very good book to read in order to get clear on how the discussion is supposed to be structured, but some of the material should be taken with a grain of salt--as should all introductory material to a topic.

Part Two of the book is somewhat lengthy, consisting of four chapters on the topic of "Reason, Faith, and Revelation." For the most part, this section is not necessary reading (though the discussion may be presupposed by the remainder of the book). Smith argues that reason and faith are inherently in opposition, since by its very meaning "faith" refers to some epistemic procedure which is necessary for us to utilize from time to time--when reason falls short. The point is repeated ad nauseam: the only reason the Christian says we need faith is because he has tried to show that there are shortcomings with reason. Thus, faith is by its very nature irrational, according to Smith. That point, I suppose, is fine. But it does not need such an elaborate discussion, and it does not need to be repeated so much over the course of these tedious chapters. In the next chapter Smith argues that the proponent of faith is a philosohical cousin to the skeptic (which is somebody who thinks we cannot have justified beliefs or knowledge). He connects the two positions by pointing out that the proponent of faith has to find some deficiency with reason and our ordinary truth-finding faculties (memory, the senses, etc.), and this is precisely the kind of thing that the skeptic does. The only difference is that where the skeptic stops, the Christian introduces "faith" to save our beliefs. That's a clever observation, I suppose, but Smith consistently misrepresents (I think) both the skeptic as well as the Christian proponent of faith. He tries to refute skepticism, with limited success. Some of his ideas on refuting skepticism are commonly discussed in philosophy, but the skeptical worry persists in contemporary philosophy, which suggests that Smith is overconfident in his refutation. In fact, part of the problem is that he is not attacking the most compelling arguments in favor of skepticism. For example, he spends several pages refuting skepticism about sense perception in a fictional dialogue. The only problem is that the "skeptic" in the dialogue comes off like a neophyte undergraduate who has just listened to his first lecture on skepticism.

The next chapter discusses some "varieties of faith." Smith criticizes what he sees as the Bible's anti-rationalism. The only problem is that he does a superficial job of illustrating the aversion to reason that supposedly saturates the New Testament. There are a couple of passages that seem to clearly be anti-rational, but a more careful discussion is needed. He explains why thinking of "faith" as "trusting an authority" does not work, since the authority will either have good reasons for thinking what he does or not (e.g. that there is a God). If he doesn't, then that sort of faith is irrational. If he does, then it's the reasons to believe that confer justification. I think Smith misses the obvious point here: a non-philosopher can have faith that there is a God if he sees very capable philosophers defend theism, but is himself too inexperienced to make a judgment. This sort of faith does not seem all that unreasonable, but Smith only attacks a straw man version of it as far as I can tell. Lastly he gives a brief rebuttal to Blaise Pascal and William James, who both argue for the reasonableness of faith. His response to Pascal's Wager is not very good (interested readers will want to seek better responses elsewhere), and his response to James' so-called "Will to Believe" was okay, but not great.

The last chapter in this section is about "revelation," and discusses the reliability of the Biblical account of revelation and miracles. When it comes to the Bible, unsurprisingly he finds no reason to think that it shows evidence of God revealing anything to humanity. He talks about some of the standard problems in Biblical criticism--e.g. we don't know who the people were who wrote the Gospels, so we don't know if they were reliable or where they got their information. Also, they contradict each other, tell unbelievable stories full of magic, etc. One common argument is that the Bible contains fulfilled prophecies, and Smith does do a pretty good job of responding to this. He points out, for example, that some of these alleged prophecies were never prophecies in the first place, but simply words in the Old Testament that the New Testament authors turned into prophecies. His discussion of miracles wasn't all that great. He suggests that if a miracle is thought of as a divine intervention in the natural order, then discussion about the possibility of miracles makes no sense to the atheist, who doesn't believe in a God who can intervene. Well of course the atheist doesn't believe in the miracle-worker, but he can still concede the possibility of miracles because he can concede the possibility of God. So that objection falls flat. But Smith simply moves on to discuss other definitions of 'miracle.' He says that appealing to God cannot be a possible explanation for something, since the supernatural is mysterious. A similiar claim is made by Dawkins in "The God Delusion." Of course, for those who don't build up the supernatural into such a thing as Smith conceives it, this shouldn't be a problem. And philosophically, a good case can be made that God is at least a potential explanation for some things, even if not an ultimately good explanation. When it comes to the miracles of Jesus, Smith makes some good points. In those instances where the Gospels say that Jesus did something miraculous and then told people not to tell anyone, the obvious understanding of this is to assume that this was written into the story precisely because people had never heard of this miracle, and now they'd have an excuse for why people hadn't heard it--Jesus told the healed man not to go spreading the news. Of course Jesus doesn't say this in all instances, so the point loses some of its strength.

Part Three of the book consists of Smith taking on the arguments for the existence of God. The first chapter in this section argues at length something he already said before--that God (or anything supernatural for that matter) cannot even be a potential explanation for some event. This idea he is latching onto, which seems to affect many of the points he makes in the book, is false. More sophisticated philosophers have explained in detail why this idea is false--e.g. Gregory Dawes in "Theism and Explanation." Smith's objection arises from his strange definition of the supernatural that came toward the beginning of the book. Ever since giving that definition, many of his arguments have rested on it being defined that way. The only problem is that it doesn't have to be defined as completely and utterly mysterious, as he seems to think. Next Smith argues against a few versions of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. There's not much gold in these hills worth mining. Contemporary discussions of cosmological arguments present more sophisticated versions of the argument than he argues against in the book, which means that he's only (at best) doing a decent job of refuting an argument that nobody really uses anymore, if they ever did. Even then, the points he makes against these arguments are a mixed bag. Some seem to be insightful, and some seem to completely miss their target. The same goes for the next chapter when Smith argues against design arguments. Again, the most sophisticated versions of the design arguments that are used today are not addressed in the book (of course, they couldn't be addressed in this book given that it was written four decades ago). The objections he raises to these arguments are sometimes interesting, but again the bag is too mixed to say that this section is good or bad. It is merely decent.

Part Four of the book consists of Smith's take on rational ethics vs. religious ethics. He promotes an approach to ethics similar to Ayn Rand (and Rand is quoted quite a bit in this section). His claim seems to be that ethics is about which actions and behaviors will keep us alive, and which ones will ultimately result in our death. I admit that it was difficult for me to figure out everything he was saying. He does seem to base ethics on hypothetical imperatives, which Kant thought you cannot do. Smith's idea is that there is no fact/value dichotomy: values are just another kind of fact. And ought claims follow naturally from what we value. So if I value X, and doing Y is the best way to get X, then I ought to do Y. One reason Kant thought this would not work is because ethics does not seem to say that what we ethically ought to do depends on what we want. Smith thinks this just means that ethics is more related to real human life, but what would he say about the sociopath who wants nothing more than to eat a baby before committing suicide? If he wants to eat a baby, snatching the neighbor's baby is the best way for him to achieve this goal. So he ought to snatch the neighbor's baby and eat it. It seems like basing ethics on a hypothetical (i.e. if you desire x, then...) imperative leads to this worry, but we clearly do not want to say that ethically he should kidnap the baby and eat it! For Kant, ethics is based on a categorical imperative--regardless of what your desires are, you ought to do this.

The next (and final) chapter consists of Smith's attack on religious ethics. He makes a number of claims about religious ethics being psychologically damaging, but he does not provide any actual empirical evidence to prove this. Instead, he seems to think that armchair philosophizing about certain core doctrines would be psychologically damaging. For example, he says that religious ethics does not lead to happiness, it leads to guilt. He then argues that (contrary to what many people believe) Jesus' ethics were not respectable. Jesus demands faith and obedience, and threatens those who fail to believe/obey with damnation. When he does say something good, such as the Golden Rule, it just so happens that this was not an innovative idea--Confucious had it much earlier. Other of Jesus' ideas were not original either, as he explicitly says that he is taking the idea from the Old Testament scriptures.

Overall, this book is somewhere between three and four stars. The good things about it are: (1) It sets up the debate and definitions very well, (2) It frames the discussion in an interesting way, (3) Some of the ideas and arguments are worthwhile and will be able to teach those who do not know a lot about philosophy, (4) It is written in a way that the average college-aged student will be able to understand (mostly), (5) It will challenge theists, and (6) His discussion of, for example, the arguments for the existence of God is better than Dawkins' discussion. Dawkins' discussion is more up-to-date, but Smith takes the arguments more seriously and discusses them in more depth.

The bad things were: (1) Smith's arguments were sometimes weak, and the reader may not be able to figure out when he is making a strong point or a weak point, (2) One mistake snowballs into many others, since Smith depends on previous conclusions in subsequent arguments (e.g. his construal of the supernatural), (3) His discussion of many of the topics gets a bit tedious and repetitive at times, (4) He does not do as good a job as others have in refuting the arguments for the existence of God, (5) He seems more confident than his arguments warrant.

I should note that Sam Harris recommends this book at the end of "Letter to a Christian Nation," and I think many of his own ideas probably came from the book. As I read it I could see things that Harris echoes decades later. And I noted above that Harris' approach to ethics has some things in common with the approach given here. So since this discussion of ethics wasn't anything to write home about, hopefully Harris' discussion will be more thorough and easier to understand (in his forthcoming book "The Moral Landscape").(less)

like · see review

Mar 02, 2013 Rob Hammond rated it 4 of 5 stars

This book got off to a great start by explaining why the burden of proof is on the theist. The discussion of faith vs. reason is the crux of Smith's argument, and I found parts of it to be hard to follow at times. The chapters on cosmological arguments and intelligent design are solid - they do a good job of showing how existence is a metaphysical primary. Occasionally Smith goes off the deep end with some of his rants, but overall this book does a great job of showing how a criticism of theism...more

like · see review

Feb 24, 2008 Mark rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: atheism, philosophy

This book is very clear, very concise collection of logic-based arguments against the probability of there existing a God and moral arguments concerning the consequences of doing so, particularly the Christian God. As books of this sort go, it is an easy read. Although it is dated (written by Smith in 1979 and published by Prometheus Books in '89), it still remains a great starting point for anyone who wants an introduction to intellectual reasons for adhering to atheism. The book is divided int...more

like · see review

Feb 24, 2012 Terri rated it 5 of 5 stars

The methodical and rational way the author picks apart the various traits commonly attributed to god (omniscience, omnipotence, etc) is just beautiful. I have read this book three times. Love it!

like · see review

Aug 22, 2012 Yaniv rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy

The first philosophy book I ever read. This one is a must for those interested in theology and arguments concerning the existence of god. I highly recommend it!

like · see review

Jul 09, 2012 Bob Loftin rated it 1 of 5 stars

OK, below is my original review -- which I wrote here by mistake. Just leaving it so the comments make sense.

Frankly, I thought this book by Smith was sort of unmemorable, and as such, I don't remember much about it. At the time I thought it was OK, but now, years later, I can't really recommend it.

Read the Martin book (in the comments) instead.

--- Read this a number of years ago. Smith dismantles and demolishes all of the various arguments of the existence of God. If you want to believe, don't...more

like · see review

Nov 17, 2010 Bob Cooley rated it 5 of 5 stars

I loved this book. It helped to clarify much of my thinking and indeed prompted me to change my religious preference from agnostic to atheist on Facebook.

like · see review

Jul 06, 2012 Brian rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction

This book covers the topic well from a logical and philosophical perspective, but is extremely dogmatic; worth reading in conjunction with other texts.

like · see review

May 23, 2012 David Kleparek rated it 3 of 5 stars

The first quarter of the book is intensely focused on semantic arguments, but the book settles into more traditional atheist proofs. The author is primarily a philosopher and it shows by his constant references to Christian philosophers. He is obviously a fan of Ayn Rand. The final chapters were by far the most interesting.

like · see review

Apr 30, 2013 Jeff Yoak rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: read-in-1994

A friend picking up another of Smith's books made me remember having read this one. I recall enjoying it at that time.

like · see review

Jul 01, 2009 Alan rated it 3 of 5 stars

If you want to get into an atheist's mind this the book. It has all the standard arguments and then some.

like · see review

Jul 06, 2009 Eddie Novak rated it 5 of 5 stars

Debunks the prominent arguments. If you enjoy metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics this book is essential.

True rating: 10/10

like · see review

Sep 23, 2012 Onyango Makagutu rated it 4 of 5 stars

Every rational person should read this book. It comes close to being the second book after the bible to justify atheism

like · see review

Jul 14, 2012 Ron Shoemaker rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy, favorites

Recommended for thinkers and for those who recommend faith books to atheists.

like · see review

Nov 07, 2011 Joe rated it 5 of 5 stars

Great book! George Smith systematically dismantles the conception of god.

like · see review

Mar 28, 2013 Salomon Joensen rated it 3 of 5 stars

Standard arguments against the existence of deities.

like · see review

Feb 04, 2012 Mikel Hensley rated it 5 of 5 stars

This is the book that first convinced me that I really was an atheist, a few years before the "new atheist" thing started. This book contains the philosophical case for atheism, along with a nice introduction to philosophy for us non-philosophy students. If you like The God Delusion and other "new atheist" books, I highly recommend that you read this as well.

like · see review

Apr 19, 2009 Dan rated it 5 of 5 stars

Very factual and clear, excellent book!

like · see review

May 21, 2007 Tom rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy

Without a doubt, Smith's work provides a penetrating critique of theism. It is hard to see how anyone could believe in God after reading this one. However, the author's politics - which he occasionally inserts into the text - are nothing to admire. He is a libertarian with sympathies for Ayn Rand. Nevertheless, I felt that the book's positives certainly outweighed its negatives, and I have found it to be an invaluable resource in strengthening my disbelief and in debating theists.

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 93 94 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
The Hitler button	3	13	Mar 11, 2012 03:12pm

combine
Other Editions (3)

Genres

Religion > Atheism

63 users

Philosophy

60 users

Religion

48 users

Non Fiction

38 users

Philosophy > Skepticism

3 users

Spirituality

3 users

Religion > Christianity

2 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Books by George H. Smith

Leviathan - Thomas Hobbes (The Giants of Political Thought)

Giants of Political Thought: The Federalist Papers

Thomas Paine’s Common Sense; and Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Atheism: The Case...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Atheism: The Case Agai...

“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.” — 26 people liked it

“When conformity is required, as it is in Christianity, what are the results? To begin with, the sacrifice of truth inevitably follows. One can be committed to conformity or one can be committed to truth, but not both. The pursuit of truth requires the unrestricted use of one's mind--the moral freedom to question, to examine evidence, to consider opposing viewpoints, to criticize, to accept as true only that which can be demonstrated--regardless whether one's conclusions conform to a particular creed.” — 4 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: Atheism: The Case Against God
avg rating	preview: Atheism: The Case Against God Goodreads rating: 3.97 (1197 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/97078.Atheism?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1369155534l/97078.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/97078.Atheism?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith[/url]

Atheism: The Case Against God

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website