Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God

by Armin Navabi, Nicki Hise (Editor)

• "Science can't explain the complexity and order of life; God must have designed it to be this way."
• "God's existence is proven by scripture."
• "There's no evidence that God doesn't exist."
• "God has helped me so much. How could none of it be true?"
• "Atheism has killed more people than religion, so it must be wrong!"

How many times have you heard arguments like these for why God exists? Why There Is No God provides simple, easy-to-understand counterpoints to the most popular arguments made for the existence of God. Each chapter presents a concise explanation of the argument, followed by a response illustrating the problems and fallacies inherent in it. Whether you're an atheist, a believer or undecided, this book offers a solid foundation for building your own inquiry about the concept of God.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Atheism, Philosophy, Science, Theology, Audiobook

130 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 6, 2014

About the author

Armin Navabi is a former Muslim from Iran and the founder of Atheist Republic, a non-profit organization with over one million fans and followers worldwide that is dedicated to offering a safe community for atheists around the world to share their ideas and meet like-minded individuals.

Armin was born and raised in the Islamic Republic of Iran and was indoctrinated thoroughly in the Muslim tradition. After almost losing his life in the pursuit of God’s grace, the devastation of that event motivated him to seek a better understanding of the nature and concept of God and religious belief. Armin’s journey led him to leaving Islam and becoming an atheist. Wanting to reach out to others like himself, Armin continues to examine religion as well as the notion of God and interact with others to engage in thought-provoking and educational discussion.

Reviews

[Rod Horncastle · Rating 1 out of 5]

NOPE, not one reason why there is no GOD to be found in this entire book. Just a bucket of failed atheistic thinking. Just to be clear, here is the title of this book:

Why There Is No God : simple responses to 20 common arguments for the existence of GOD

My joy is to go through all 20 arguments and see where X-muslim (New atheist) Armin Navabi went wrong. Hint: he didn't find 20 GOOD arguments. He did what richard dawkins and other enlightened - desperate for a win - atheists attempt: find the easiest theistic fluffy stands and bash them good. Indeed, not one bit of atheistic wisdom even got close to shutting down my Classic Christianity (sure, it did some flailing at fringe liberal charismatic cultish churches. So easy). But to attack the Christian God and leave Jesus forgotten in history takes a bigger man than Armin. Hopefully this book will thin the churches of some unwanted liberal agnostics... or even better: cause some to investigate the God of the Bible. Here goes.

1) "Science can't explain the complexity and order of life; God must have designed it to be this way"

It's amazing how often atheists thrust forth their proud "science of the gaps". They mock a god of the gaps while carefully claiming belief in UFO's, Multi-verses, life forms travelling on asteroids, or science that isn't really Repeatable, Predictable, Observable, or even Testable.
Boy wonder here holds up Evolution as proof that complex systems can arise without a designer. Didn't Dawkins state, "Evolution has been observed, just NOT while it's happening." ??? ummmh. Apparently science is a rather loose term these days.
We get a funny story from Armin about a Mathematician who DESIGNS a game to show how complexity can arise without a designer... (He did WHAT? Anyone else see how funny that is?)

Armin then adjusts the topic to complain about how God must have needed a designer because... BUT, an eternal creator is NOT required to be created. Remember a few short years ago when atheists boasted that the universe was eternal and therefore we don't need a god? Bhahaha.

quote by Armin:
"...we may never have all the answers. But there's nothing wrong with that. Not knowing the answer to a question is not a valid excuse for making up a fairytale to explain it."

Please remember that Armin said that. And apply it fairly to Intelligent Design and religious thinking. Armin seems to demand a lot of answers. And then go investigate some Macro-Evolutionary thinking. Everytime you see a scientist state MAYBE, MIGHT HAVE, WE THINK, POSSIBLY, PERHAPS... remember that this is supposed to be science they are bludgeoning us with - not random guesses and fairytales from lab rats in white suits.
Nothing here removes the Biblical God.

2) "God's Existence Is Proven By Scripture"

The Bible isn't here to PROVE God exists. Who told you that? Really no different than holding up an elephant and claiming this proves it was once a mouse. Funny that here "Armin" boasts of scripture being hyperbole speculation and mythology (similar to how we see atheistic evolutionary claims -- except that bit where atheists claim Apes as their ancestors, they can have that. No argument.)

My favorite comments are in this section. Here Armin attempts to take on the Bible and its contradictions.

So how can God use light when the sun hasn't been created yet? Well, God IS light. Therefore no reason to argue about what day the sun was created. Any first year Bible student recalls: Revelation 22:5
"There will be no more night in the city, and they will have no need for the light of a lamp or of the sun. For the Lord God will shine on them, and they will reign forever and ever."

It appears Armin didn't do his homework. Typical. To properly comprehend the beginning of the Bible: it's best to read the ending as well. Three other :POSSIBLE contradictory Bible moments are shown:
Did Joseph of Arimathea OR OTHERS bury Jesus? Seriously, does this guy even own a Bible? Many people were involved in Jesus last moments and burial. This is just lazy desperate attacks. Kinda funny. Remember Armin; contradictions are 2 things that can't possible be at the same time.

Contradiction?
Matthew 27: 59And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud... 61Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb.

Acts 13: 29And when they had carried out all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.

??? Seriously? Is that the best you can do? A 1000 page Bible and you can't find a better contradiction than ONE specific and ONE general account? And people wonder why I mock atheists daily.

Since this is my favorite comedy chapter I'll have a go at ALL of Armin's hopeful Biblical contradictions. Here's the 2nd basket that all Armin's eggs are in:
How many angels were in the tomb of Jesus?

Matthew 28: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. 5But the angel said to the women,

This definitely focuses on ONE angel. Doesn't say there weren't two. The writer of Matthew might not even have been there. So this is just telling the story. Let's see what Luke and John say to contradict Matthew.

Luke 24: they went to the tomb... 2And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel.

Mark 16: 5And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed.

John 20: 11But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. 12And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. 13They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?”

So you can easily tell this is the account from different timelines, and different purposes. Luke speaks of the entire incident with soldiers and THEN the ladies appearing. Other accounts aren't guaranteed to mention EVERY single bit of info - just the essentials. YES, angels are definitely there: does the number matter? Hardly. WE have 4 authors getting the story across. It's all about Jesus, not the angels dancing on the head of a pin. Of course: if you have 2 angels in a room - then there was definitely ONE. So this is not a contradiction. Remember: the Bible isn't a DVD manual from china, it's a religious theological account written across many cultures.

For a modern day comparison:
Go ask a husband and wife to give details about their previous restaurant experience - one will say, "we have a waitress take our order and bring us some food. Then we paid the check." Yes, totally accurate. Then the wife will say, "we met the hostess who seated us, then the waitress came and brought water and took/brought our order, then the manager came by and greeted us, later a busboy came and cleared our table, then we paid at the counter. Later a valet brought our car to us."
________

One more just for fun. This complaint is a good one (liberal Bible-hating christians actually like this one. Justifies their dismissing of the Bible as a reliable Word from God. Atheists everywhere applaud.)

Did Jesus die before, during, or after the Passover meal? Let's see. Put your scholarly cap on and shut off your biases for about 5 minutes. (too much to ask I know). Let's find Armin's contradiction... that apparently 2000 years of Bible scholars somehow missed.

First off. Let's understand Passover: Exodus 23:
14“Three times in the year you shall keep a feast to me. 15You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread. As I commanded you, you shall eat unleavened bread for seven days at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt...

Leviticus 23:6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread.

Hmmm, Unleavened bread eating for 7 days eh? Interesting. Bit of wiggle room perhaps. Maybe not.

Mark 14 - 15 ...YES, Jesus died after HE ate HIS passover meal.
John 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 IS THE PASSOVER MEAL...So clearly Jesus died AFTER it in John as well.

Maybe Armin is confused by simple sentence structure and breaks. John does state:
John 13:1 and THEN 2:
1Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2During supper (yes, this is LATER, the Passover meal)...

It seems Armin assumed a run on sentence. That's kind of funny. (pg. 21)
"When scripture can't even come to a consensus about a simple fact like the date of Jesus's crucifixion, it difficult to accept the accounts as being historically accurate, much less divinely inspired."

The other issue is the labeling of time itself, in the first century. There aren't 24 hour days, but sections of the day. And the start of a day may begin at dark - rather than morning.

Later Armin attacks the Islamic Quran. That's okay. I do it all the time. Carry on.

Armin then makes an interesting assumption and shows some historical snobbery. (Pg. 23)
"Jesus's contemporaries were Aramaic-speaking, illiterate commoners. They could neither read nor write..."

Says who?
There sure were a lot of scripture reading, priests and politicians running around. Lots of parents too who probably didn't think twice about educating their kiddies in the ways of Moses. YES, they took religion very seriously. Seriously enough to kill Jesus. Remember that old Testament bit where the Jews were told to: Deuteronomy 6

6And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. 8You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

Armin assumes these folks didn't take their heritage seriously. Interesting. I recall a lot of folks then taking their traditions rather extremely. Enough to revolt against Rome and have Jerusalem destroyed. No shortage of those involved in the temples.
Again, no reason to assume there is no GOD yet Armin. Keep trying.

3) "Some unexplained events are miraculous, and these miracles prove the existence of God."

I don't generally use this as an argument. But we do live in a life supporting Universe, Galaxy, Planet, and we seem to have impressive consciousness stuffed into meatbots that one day decided to divide into male and female and repopulate with sexual urges and enough knowledge to cut the umbilical chord. That's enough to keep me interested in a GOD.

4) "Morality stems from God, and without God, we could not be good people."

WE aren't. WE can't even define objective good without a GOD. One man's prostitute is another man's wife/mother/daughter/sister. Good thing there's a God to say: "Cut that crap out."
As we still see that - most DON'T cut that crap out.

Side argument: God is either impotent, Evil, or non-existent.
Actually God is patient, tolerant, waiting, and about to bring JUSTICE and WRATH, and put an end to sin and evil in HIS Kingdom. Hell can do whatever it wants - won't be fun though, no resources.

Another side argument: An all-loving god would surely not damn his children to an eternity of torture simply for being born into...

Why assume some are God's children? God is also ALL-JUSTICE. Hell isn't necessarily torture (read the book carefully). There's nothing simple about eternal judgement. (read some Calvinism)

Armin boasts of natural altruistic behaviors: HE fails to mention those who eat their young and rape and impregnate at will. And then there's the animal kingdom...

5) "Belief in God would not be so widespread if God didn't exist."

Men don't go around creating religions - demons do. WE go around lying, stealing, raping, coveting, abusing, devouring, absorbing and destroying. It takes something supernatural to borrow and twist religion. Although people endlessly going around saying "OMG and Jesus H. Christ" is rather fascinating.

6) "God Answers Prayers; Therefore, He Must Be Real"

Not an argument I would use. But I have seen numerous people drastically change their lives for the better based on possible prayer...and i've seen atheists get WORSE.

7) "I Feel A Personal Relationship with God, So I Know That He Is Real"

Not an argument I would use. But nothing here erases a Biblical Deity. Keep trying.

8) "It's Safer To Believe In God Than Be Wrong And Go To Hell"

Satan believes in God. This doesn't prove Armin's case. Best NOT TO go to hell though.

9) "God Isn't Defined, Comprehended, Described. One Must Simply Have Faith"

Bad argument, the Bible very clearly tells us much about God. Actually God GIVES US faith. WE don't just whip up a batch.

10) "There's NO Evidence That God Doesn't Exist"

Again: bad argument. WE live in a world of religion. Sort through the data. There are many ways to prove fanciful claims aren't true - don't be so lazy.

11) "If There Is No God, Where Did Everything Come From? Without God, There Is No Explanation"

There's still no GOOD explanation. Just Atheists throwing Multi-verses and Space Aliens all Amuck in the name of Science Of The Gaps.

12) "My Religion/God Has Helped Me So Much. How Could It Not Be Real?"

Not a good argument. Not one that undoes a Biblical God either. Now if atheists could just explain how they came across the word "GOOD"? AS opposed to "BAD".

13) "God Is Love; God Is energy"

Said NO Christian ever. I'll move on. Fruity Spiritualist Guru's are YOUR problem.

14) "The Laws Of Logic Prove the Existence of God"

I would say the Data proves the Existence of God. Laws are only as good as we comprehend them.

15) "Believing In God Provides Meaning and Purpose; Without It, Life Would Be Meaningless"

Atheists simply belittle the point of Purpose and Meaning. Reduce it to the equivalent of having a pet rock.
Here he argues about needing Proof to substantiate beliefs. But what proof would he like; or even accept. My guess is NONE will do, or even be allowed into the game.
He also makes a typical flaw of atheism here: "False Ideas about the universe... can set false expectations among believers and strip them of the tools they need to properly cope with the challenging events of their lives in a healthy way."

Explain the terms: PROPERLY, EXPECTATIONS, COPE, and HEALTHY. Atheism doesn't justify or claim any altruistic good or purpose. One man's death is another's conquest and prosperity. Atheism doesn't have a default position or inherent goodness or purpose any different than Hitler's.
Armin even shows us this: "You are free to seek your own meaning and value by making your own choices and discovering your own unique path. There is no single outside force imposing meaning on the events of your life." A tear just came to Hitler's eye. He's so proud, and here Armin goes against his argument earlier:


"Life is, objectively, meaningless; given the size and scope of the universe and our tiny role within it..."
Welcome to Atheism 101. OUCH!

16) "So many people died for God/Religion. Surely, it must be real"

Said NOBODY. This erase God how? Silly atheist fodder. WE all know more people died for Atheistic subjectivity and greed.
Good quote by Armin: "This history says more about the violent and hurtful aspects of human nature than it does about the existence of God."

YES, humans are nasty aren't they. Don't blame a god for their atheistic warring behavior. Gods can fight their own battles. Most religious folks don't really believe their gods can get the job done.

Funny quote by Armin: "This might explain suicide cults, where OTHERWISE RATIONAL PEOPLE are willing to commit mass suicide...heaven's gate...UFO..."

Define : OTHERWISE RATIONAL??? Bhahahaha.

17) "Atheism Has Killed More People Than Religion, So It Must Be Wrong"

A serious religious person would believe their Deity can do His own killing. Everyone else is basically liberal atheists. Interestingly: 99.9% of the crimes in my newspaper aren't religious. Hmmm?

Armin finally said it: "...or any other action, both good and bad, do not and cannot speak for atheism in general, as no two atheists necessarily hold any of the same beliefs or convictions about the world."
Welcome to the Atheistic Republic - which can never be an agreed upon Utopia of Good or Bad. Just meaningless indifference and tolerance in the name of...?

18) "You'll Become A Believer When You Are Desperate For God's Help"

NO you won't. Most aren't that desperate or humble.

19) "Smart People and Renowned Scientists like X, Y, and Z Believe In God, So It Must Be True"

Nope, Just means there are successful Atheists and Religious. And that science is often a joke based on peer review and corporate academic incentives. Satan?

Fun quote by Armin:
"Experts can and often do make mistakes." YES, like this book.

Another fun quote that destroys atheistic macro-evolutionary pseudo-science: "If an expert has no evidence to support her (Armin's) claim or if her claim cannot be REPRODUCED AND TESTED (and repeated as well as predicted), her view is hardly more reliable than that of anybody else."

This book sure helps me to NEVER be an atheist. Good job Armin. Keep Em' Comin'.

20) "How Can We Really Know Anything?"

I've never heard a Christian say that. Maybe a Buddhist, or Hindu, or Eastern Spiritualist Hot Yoga Bimbo. I could Imagine some atheists boasting of this. WE Christians claim to know almost EVERYTHING - we're blessed that way. :cD
Thanks to the Bible: We know A LOT. From our origins, to our purpose, to our destiny and the meaning of it all. Atheists honestly don't know any of those. Remember that meaningless bit Armin was babbling about. Welcome to Atheism.
________________

Well, there it is. Nothing in this book even began to prove there is no Christian God. I have learned a lot about Atheism though (mostly funny stuff - some sad despairing bits too).

Here's a good ending quote:
"As seen throughout this book, that evidence does not exist. No argument laid out by theists so far is compellingly believable."

So far all i've seen is that Armin hasn't even begun to look. He hasn't explored how false religions desperately push and pull against Jesus. The world just can't seem to leave this guy Messiah alone. WE have a Bible that atheists can read - and yet they don't use it to see how the world corrupts simple words in print. If the world ignored it: that would be impressive. But all I see is Jesus EVERYWHERE - media, movies, books, archaeology, Philosophy, culture, wars... even atheists are endlessly talking about him. Armin can't seem to find a God that is EVERYWHERE at once. Judaism points to a Jesus, Christianity HAS a Jesus, gnostics tried to steal a Jesus, Catholics worshiped Jesus' mother, Muslims rewrote a Jesus, Hindu's and Buddhists claim Jesus is an Avatar, Communists keep Jesus out, Cults keep borrowing Jesus, Many claim to BE Jesus, Mormons and J.W.'s keep insisting only they can get back to the REAL Jesus, Hollywood warps the basic Jesus in his own story. Atheists can't stop hating and rebelling the classic Jesus.

And Armin just sits there claiming he wants evidence. Bhaha!

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Not knowing the answer to a question is not a valid excuse for making up a fairytale to explain it."

This is a relatively short book (96 pages) by Armin Navabi, but it still manages to cover a wide range of topics in a clear and concise manner. It dismantles each archetypal argument regarding the existence of God and offers you enough ammunition to respond to the usual unsubstantiated claim by a religious peer without becoming unstuck.

Navabi's ability to point out the internal errors, inconsistencies and differing accounts within the 'holy' books of each religion is something to be admired; "If scripture was a document describing historical reality, the basic facts should be consistent from one account to the next. Some biblical errors are inconsistent with the observable laws of the universe. For example, Genesis 1:1 - 19 states that God created the heavens and the earth on the first day of creation; the stars, sun, moon and other planets were all created on the fourth day, a full day after the creation of seed-bearing plants. This order makes no sense as plants require sunlight to grow, even if you ignore the scientific fact that the sun and stars existed long before the earth and flowering plants.

"In the Quran, several scientific errors are also apparent. For example, the Quran suggests that the earth is flat with the sun rising and setting in particular parts of the earth (18:86). Such errors make sense when considering the scientific knowledge at the time when the Quran was written, but they would not make sense if the Quran had been written by an all-knowing deity, as is believed by Muslims, who hold true the belief that the Quran is the direct and exact word of God to Mohammed."

Islam and Christianity are the two most popular religions in the world and yet above you can see that one man, Navabi, simply by scrutinising the Quran and Bible at length, was able to discover the plethora of illogical and irrational statements made by the fallible scribes who created them all those years ago. What's most troubling about this, of course, is the sheer amount of people who believe that these passages are undoubtedly true, completely disregarding whether it's logical or not. I'm equally concerned that religion is still as prevalent in an age where science has offered answers to most of the 'gaps' which were previously filled by God according to believers; that gap is thinning considerably now and I hope that it's only a matter of time before the world is able to come to their senses and start thinking rationally and freely.

Religions demand perfect evidence from anyone rebutting their claims but offer none for their own claims.

If faced with convincing evidence in favour of any deity, we should reconsider our position. But we need to ask questions and go where the evidence leads us, rather than try to lead the evidence where we like. By questioning everything, we follow the evidence, rather than trying to force the evidence to fit our presupposed conclusions.

All in all, this book serves as a handbook for responding to those unfalsifiable claims by theists. But remember: the burden of proof lies heavily on their shoulders, not yours.

[Shaya · Rating 5 out of 5]

خب خب موردي كه باعث تعجبم شد كه چرا هيچ كامنت فارسي نداشت اين كتاب؟يعني كسي نخونده؟فقط خارجيا خوندن؟نميخوام برم بالاي منبر ولي واسم سواله اين قضيه🤔خب طبيعتا وقتي ما ميگيم كتابخونيم يعني داريم چيزاي جديدي ياد ميگيريم بايد فرقي باشه بين ما و كسي كه كتاب نميخونه🤨خب اگه ادم متعصبي باشيد به چه دردي ميخوره كتاب خوندن؟تعصب داشتن جالب نيس،بنظرم اينكه خودمونو به ژانر يا موضوع خاصي وابسته ميكنيم اصن خوب نيس،بنظرم بايد با تفكرات بقيه هم اشنا شد،من نميگم اين كتاب خوبه يا بد.البته حالت ديگه ايي هم داره ميخونيد و نشون نميديد!تا كي خودسانسوري؟تا كي تظاهر؟

[Rafael · Rating 5 out of 5]

So this was a fast read and not just because is a short one but because is good, as an atheist it has most of the arguments one commonly use to defend his position, it also has very accurate answers to the most common questions theists use when defending their beliefs, rational and well gather information rule this book of answers, I highly recommend it. One extra point for this book is the outrageous comments reviews of believers, its just funny how pissed off they become when they realize that reason takes away their beliefs. Haha

[Wayne Barrett · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am disappointed because, as the title suggests, this was supposed to be "simple responses" but to me it read more like an impersonal, technical document.

[Tim Bergmann · Rating 1 out of 5]

The only good thing about this book is that it'a short, easy read.

And regardless of which side you fall on, this book doesn't deliver anything new or in depth. In fact, a lot of the arguments are incredibly weak. I would even go so far as to say that one of the arguments is probably the single worst argument in the history of the debate between atheism and theism.

That being the example of from chapter 1, the example of John Conways game, Game of Life, a computer program designed to make seemingly incomplexity become complex. While on the face, it might seem like it works, bur let's be realistic. His argument that this proves there is no God is in part based on a game, that was designed and made by someone. A game that was CREATED by someone is someone an argument against a CREATOR. WUT?!?!?

Next point, his actual title doesn't really work either. Why There is No God, basically doesn't actually prove there is no God. He really doesn't explain why there isn't one. He only refutes his own version of quotes that believers use to quantify their faith.

And by using his own logic, the one that needs to do the proving is the one that is accusing as as thus provide evidence. He's the one making the claim of No God, therefore he needs to actually provide the proof. Not one of his arguments do that.

Outside of that, he just rides on the standard Doubting Thomas arguemnt of “no proof”, and “just because you want to belive in something, doesn't make it true.” And ironically, that's also a statement that can easily be used both ways. Just because the author doesn't want to believe in a God, doesn't make it true.

Further on in the book, he argues about prayer, which seems to me he lacks an intimate knowledge of what prayer is. Which makes me question whether or not what he says about his background is true. Even in his introduction, he writes about how difficult and how atheists are persecuted, also makes me question his background, because he seems to also be implying that Christians or Muslims have never been martyred for their faith, though even in recent times people have been.

He also touches on, in Chapter 11, the idea of God of the Gaps, where while essentially true, people due tend to fill in the gaps in terms of evolution and creation when it comes to God. Where he gets it wrong though, is that he fails to realize that he's doing the same thing. One of which is falling into the whole multi-verse argument, which is essentially the atheistic “God of the Gaps.” There is no shred of proof at all for the multi-verse, yet it's used to explain why the universe exists because with infinite possibilities in a multi-verse, anything can happen. Again, the problem is that there is no proof at all of a multi-verse and he's using it to “fill in the gaps” that can't be explained. Very poor form.

Another thing that makes me question whether or not his background is true, is that he seems to have a distinct lack of understanding of God. He seems to think that He's some sort of cosmic Santa Claus giving unlimited gifts to all people that do good deeds and pray in the right way, etc... That's really not even remotely close to the God of the Bible or the Quran. And as one that came from that background, he should know this.

Thus to conclude, I honestly think this is a terrible book. So bad that even atheists should steer clear of it because truthfully, if someone like me can pick apart this book this easily, and I don't consider myself a Rhodes scholar by any stretch of the imagination, then there isn't much of anything for anyone.

[Bianca A. · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must-read for contemporary atheists

The book was published in 2014 and I have completed readint the electronic version of it.
I found out about the book through the Facebook group Atheist Republic that the author created since 2011. It came as a surprise to me to discover only at the end of the book that the author is an ex-Muslim and his life story can stir up quite some emotion.
The book straightforwardly delivers that which is promised in the title and the description almost flawlessly with a great variety of references. I added some names and titles into my reading list, so expect you'll do the same.
There have been many books through the course of the last century since the scientific and intellectual revolutions that cover atheism, and this one has one of the boldest titles. I'm glad to see literature covering this topic blooming and I'll try to support it in every way possible.
I've been an atheist for a very long time and never recall being ever religious, but everyone's journey is different and that's perfectly normal. Keep educating yourself through books such as Navabi's and keep being skeptical.
I was also glad to see Carl Sagan and Bertrand Russel mentioned, who are some of my heroes that I look up to who have given me confidence and inspired me to have a voice with my peers.
Keep educating yourselves, be skeptical and continue to improve the quality and format of your questions.

[Peter Caron · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this having already spent a great deal of time and effort on understanding the cases for and agaist belief in God. Many of these 20 arguments can be found in much greater detail in the "standard" works of this century and the last; Dawkins, Hitchens, Sagen, et al. But Navibi does something important here. He has presented the reader with short, clear and logical arguments against the most popular delusions associated with religious beliefs which can be used to defend yourself against the (self) righteous.

Perhaps a word of warning is in order. If you use these arguments against true believers be prepared. For after the confrontation their only refuge will be in illogical and irrational belief; those who won't let facts get in the way of their ideas. So good is the logic of the author's presentation. On the other hand, as a work of self-help to let people learn to open their eyes and see the paper thin arguments in favour of the existence of God, this book deserves a full five stars.

[Jordan Lindfors · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this book. The arguments aren't new but the way the author goes about it is. Most of the atheist books I've read have used a data driven approach to refuting religious debates. They always state facts and figures around evolution or how Denmark is highly ranked in every form of a healthy society yet being mainly atheist. In this book however, the author uses a more philosophical approach to each response. It was a refreshing thing to read because of that. It really makes you sit back and think about the responses and conversations you've had with religious people. The arguments he uses are very non threatening and will be a great way to talk to some of those defensive apologists. It was a very easy read and I finished it in under three days.

[Louis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Why There is No God (Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God) by Armin Navabi

This is a “short and to the point” book. Each of the arguments is briefly stated and then a counter argument is given discussing the fallacies of the original argument.

If one has read much on this subject I would suggest giving this book a pass. But I do think the book has value. The author states that he hopes it can be used as a topic starter for believers and non-believers. I agree with his hope that it’s a good place for one who is starting to question the existence of God and for the believers that may not understand how can people not believe in God? For that last group, this is a great primer to understand the “other half” and in the minimum maybe ask them to relook at their arguments for God’s existence.

I did find the story of the author’s background very interesting. There is a summation of his journey at the end of the book. Armin Navabi is a former Muslim from Iran and the founder of the non-profit Atheist Republic. At a young age he seemed tortured in trying to gain God’s good graces. Being very logical, in hearing that a young boy dying before the age of 15 is guaranteed access to heaven, he implements a plan to save his soul, he tries to kill himself at the age of 14!

In recovering from that action he slowly moves forwards on a path that many have followed before and comes to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist.

He had to take quite a journey to get to this point. So the book is thin and tries to stay “simple” but there is power in that simplicity.

[Jean-Pierre · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brief but clear and pretty well-documented overview, and rational, systematic rejection, of the arguments invoked by believers (whether Muslim or Christian) to support their claims for existence of God.

[Moataz · Rating 4 out of 5]

From the very beginning no one can miss the simplicity of the book and the straight-to-the-topic style. It's as the author said; CONCISE.

It's my first book on the topic written by a "former Muslim". One of the counter arguments made by Muslims is that some of atheists' books are written to attack and ridicule Christianity and that to them is beneficial for then they provide answers to such arguments saying that if you say such and such in the Bible is nonsense we also believe it to be so and our Quran provides a more sound ideas and concepts like such and such.

Although the book contains most of the common questions asked about the existence of a deity/god and tries to provide simple answers, it might backfire at it's own cause. The reason for such a drawback is that for a reader who is new to the arguments concerning god/deity existence this book could help very well in directing him to a further search and readings (as the author said) but it also can convince others that the arguments are not so convincing and give them a back-to-religion ticket.

What I wish the author would do is to extend the chapters more by diving deeper into the arguments and provide more support for it from philosophy/science which is not a hard job to be done and it'd be more beneficial for all; those new to that kind of inquiries and those willing to get more ideas for debating.

For a good book to be written the author ought to imagine what the most harsh critics would be, act like an extremist religious person and attack your arguments then come back and defend/support them and by doing that you'd write a big book that is debate/critique proof. The author said at the end of the book that he is working on other two books that will dive deeper in questioning religions and that he is aware that this book is concise.I hope that those two books would really be thorough in their topics because he reflects a large segment of atheists not represented that much in written books (I mean former Muslims).

Four stars not because the book is not that good (which is the contrary) but because it's too short.

[Monqeth · Rating 2 out of 5]

قرأت الكتاب في نسخته الإنجليزية في 2017 ولم أشأ أن أكتب مراجعة في نفس لغته لضعف قدرتي على التعبير عن الأدلة بالإنجليزية، ولكون المراجعة احتمالية تأثر الغربيين بها منخفضة، لكن لما عرفت بوجود الترجمة العربية كان لزامًا أن أكتب.
وما سأطرحه في المراجعة هو التالي:
1- الكتب التي تساعد في الرد على الكتاب، أو تذكر نكات معينة مبنية على حقائق ذكرها الكتاب.
2- عنوان الكتاب الخاطئ ورواية شيعية تهدف إلى نقل الملحد المادي من الجهل المركب إلى الجهل البسيط.
3- ما أعجبني في الكتاب
4- أخطاء منهجية
5- ردود على بعض شبهات الكاتب حاولت على قدر الإمكان أن أقلل منها كي لا أحرق الكتاب على من يريد قراءته.
6- ما ذكره الكاتب من سفسطة والرد عليه.
7- الكاتب كان مسلمًا! وله قصة مبكية.


الكتب التي ذكرتها بين طيات المراجعة سأضعها هنا ولكن الأفضل أن تقرا المراجعة لتعرف موقع الكتب في الاحتجاج:
أجوبة الشبهات الكلامية الجزء الثاني: العدل
Pascal's Wager: Pragmatic Arguments and Belief in God
من خلق الله؟
ميزان الفكر لأكاديمية الحكمة العقلية
مناهج التفكير لأكاديمية الحكمة العقلية
نافذة على الفلسفة
اتجاه الدين في مناحي الحياة
رسالة في التسامح لجون لوك

أول ما يصدمك في الكتاب:
هو عنوانه المخالف للمضمون، فالكاتب لم يقدم (ولن يقدم أحد) دليلًا ضعيفًا على عدم وجود الله تعالى، لكون المدعى هو أن الله تعالى غير مادي فلا يمكن رصد وجوده بالحس والتجربة، وحتى لو ادعينا بأنه كائن مادي مجسم ذو طول وبعد وعمق -كما يعتقد بعض المسلمين-، إلا أن هذا لا ينفي وجوده تعالى، لأننا لم نفتش الكون جيدًا وليس يمتنع بحسب الفرض الذي يطرحه المجسمة ويريده الملاحدة، ليس يمتنع إمكان وجوده خارج الكون، وفي هذا المقام أتذكر رواية شيعية عن أحد أئمتهم خاطب فيها الملحد المادي المجسم بنفس لغته جاء فيها:
"فلما فرغ أبو عبد الله أتاه الزنديق فقعد بين يدي أبي عبد الله (ع)، ونحن مجتمعون عنده، فقال أبو عبد الله (ع) للزنديق: أتعلم أن للأرض تحتاً وفوقاً؟ قال: نعم، قال: فدخلت تحتها؟ قال: لا، قال: فما يدريك ما تحتها؟ قال: لا أدري إلا أني أظن أن ليس تحتها شيء، فقال أبو عبد الله(ع): فالظن عجز لما لا تستيقن؟ ثم قال أبو عبد الله (ع): أفصعدت السماء؟ قال: لا ، قال: أفتدري ما فيها؟ قال: لا، قال: عجباً لك لم تبلغ المشرق، ولم تبلغ المغرب، ولم تنزل الأرض، ولم تصعد السماء، ولم تجز هناك فتعرف ما خلفهن، وأنت جاحد بما فيهن! وهل يجحد العاقل ما لا يعرف؟! قال الزنديق: ما كلمني بهذا أحد غيرك."


ما أعجبني:
الكتاب يحترم عقلك إلى حد ما، وأسلوب خطابه يناسب الجميع، ولا أظنني وقفت على استفزاز يستحق الذكر، ونوقشت فيه حتى الحجج الضعيفة للمؤمنين، ففرق بين الثرى والثريا إذا ما قارننا إنتاج ريتشارد دوكنز في الإلحاد ومعاداة الأديان (لا في علم الأحياء والتطور) بهذا الكتاب.


الأخطاء المنهجية:
1- ما ورد في عنوان الكتاب، إذ أن القاعدة المنطقية تقول "عدم الوجدان لا يعني عدم الوجود" ومعناها أن عدم علمك بوجود شيء لا يعني أن هذا الشيء غير موجود، وأقصى ما يمكن أن يقال جدلًا في المقام أن الله -تعالى عما يقولون- لا نعلم هل هو حقا موجود أم لا، فالشك هو الموقف الأولى في غياب الدليل وليس النفي والإلحاد كما يزعم الكاتب!
2- اتخاذه درجة من السفسطة وهي الشك في الوجود، سأذكرها بالأسفل.
3- يطلب أن يستدل على وجود الخالق بالحس او العلم التجريبي، والحال أننا لا نستدل بالحس والتجربة بل بالعقل (توجد فرقة إسلامية تعتقد أن عدم إمكان رؤيتنا لله تعالى يلزم منه القول بأن الله معدوم، وهذا القول يرادف القول بأن الاستدلال لابد أن يكون حسيا تجريبيا، فهم متناقضون)


ردود على بعض شبهات الكاتب يفصل بينها سطر:
1- يقول "كيف يكون الله رحيما وهو يعذب أبناءه إلى الأبد في جهنم لأنهم ولدوا على دين معين؟" والجواب:
ربما هذه الشبهة تتوجه إلى النصارى، لكن في الإسلام لا أحد يتعرض للعقاب الأخروي فقط لأنه لم يختر الإسلام، فهناك استثناءات يمكن التعرف عليها عبر مقطع يوتيوب بعنوان "مقتطفات الأحمدي: هل كل الكفار في النار"، لكن نحن في الدنيا مطالبون بأن نؤمن بأن كل كافر في النار.
أما أبدية العذاب للبعض فالكلام فيها من مقدمتين:
المقدمة الأولى: أن معظم عقوبات السجن تكون مدتها أطول من مدة الجريمة، وكلما كانت الجريمة أشنع كلما كانت مدة السجن أطول، فمثلًا تجد أن عقوبة اغتصاب الأطفال إن لم تصل للقتل ستصل إلى مدة طويلة من السجن، مع أن الجريمة قد لا تتجاوز دقائق معدودات.
المقدمة الثانية: إذا لم يلزم تساوي مدة الجريمة مع مدة العقوبة، فلا يبقى هناك إشكال، والعقل لا يستطيع تقبيح العذاب الأبدي خصوصًا مع احتمالية استحقاق الكفر للعذاب الأبدي، لأن العقل لا يمنع هذه الاحتمالية.
وللرد على الشبهات حول عدل الله تعالى أحيل إلى كتاب أجوبة الشبهات الكلامية الجزء الثاني: العدل

2- قال الكاتب "أن الدين والأخلاق طفرات انتخبتها الطبيعة فساهمت في حفظ النوع، ولا تدل على وجود خالق للكون" ووضع اقتباسات لعلماء تخدم رأيه، والجواب على كلامه:
أولًا: لقد اعترفتم بأن الدين له فائدة عملية اجتماعية، فلماذا تريدون هدم الدين؟
ثانيا: هناك احتمال أن بحثنا عن الحقيقة هو أمر تطوري ساعد على حفظ النوع، لكن يجب عدم الخلط بين هذا وبين الاستدلال على الحقيقة، فلو سلمنا أن الدين منتج تطوري، فإن الاستدلال على وجود الخالق على الأقل ممكن منطقيًا ممكن عقلًا، فليس الإيمان بالخالق مرتبط بالدين بشكل مباشر! إذن لا يلزم تطورية فكرة وجود الله أو بطلانها فقط لأن الدين منتج تطوري!
ثالثا: الأخلاق تساعد على حفظ النوع نعم، ولكن لا يلزم أنها منتج تطوري خصوصًا وأن هناك ما لا تستطيع نظرية التطور تفسيره، كأن يرعى الإنسان الأخلاق التي لا يضر عدم مراعاتها النوع البشري، مثل أن يأمر الإنسان من يراهم يفعلون الزنا بالاستتار وراء حائط ، أو كأن يضحي الإنسان بنفسه كي لا يموت بضعة أشخاص لا يمثل موتهم ضررًا للنوع البشري، بل أكثر من هذا كأن يضحي الإنسان بحياته من أجل فكرته مع علمه بأن لا أحد سيعتنقها بعده حتى لو علموا بتضحيته.
رابعًا: هناك إشكال مهم على النظرية التطورية للدين والأخلاق، وهي أن الإيمان والأخلاق منتجات ميتافيزيقية متعالية على الزمان والمكان وليست مادية، فكيف يراد تفسيرها بأدوات علمية تجريبية؟

3- يقول الكاتب على أن رهان باسكال يختص بالنصرانية فقط وأن الرهان لا يضمن دخولك الجنة بلا لا يضمن عدم دخولك النار، وفي الحقيقة الكثير من الناس لم يفهموا الرهان ولا موقعه في احتجاج باسكال للدين، ومن خلال أول 60 صفحة من كتاب Pascal's Wager: Pragmatic Arguments and Belief in God استطيع تلخيص بعض ما أراد قوله باسكال:
- لنفترض أن وجود الله تعالى لا يمكن إثباته بالعقل.
- فإن المراهنة على وجوده أفضل لنا من عدمها -في الآخرة على الأقل-، لأنه لو تبين وجوده فإننا سنربح ربحًا عظيمًا، وإن لم يكن موجودًا لم نخسر شيئًا، أما إن لم نراهن فإن كان موجودًا أو غير موجودٍ فلن نربح أي شيء، فالمقارنة بين الموقفين تحتم علينا المراهنة لأن هناك ربحًا محتملًا من المراهنة.
- هذه الخطوة الأولى في احتجاج باسكال، وأما الخطوة الثانية فهي بالاستدلال على وجود الله تعالى بالكتا�� المقدس النصراني، فغاية الرهان هي تحفيزك وليس أن تراهن فقط، على الأقل هذا بالنسبة لما أراده باسكال، ولي آراء سأضعها في مراجعتي على الكتاب السابق عندما أنتهي منه.

4- يعترض الكاتب على مسببية الله تعالى للعالم وأن الإنسان لأنه لا يعلم كل شيء فإنه يضطر لملأ الفراغات بالماورائيات مع أن العلم يتوسع كل يوم ونكتشف أسباب الأشياء فلا داعي للإيمان بالدين أو الخالق، والجواب:
أولا: هناك فرق بين جهلنا بالسبب وبين الجهل بجنس السبب إن جاز التعبير، فنحن نجهل كنه وحقيقة الله تعالى نعم، ولكننا نستدل على وجوده بوجود آثاره، من هنا قد يصف الناس الخالق بالعديد من الصفات المتضاربة لكن هذا موضوع آخر منفصل عن الاستدلال على وجوده، ولتقريب الصورة أكثر أقول لو اتصل على هاتفك شخص من رقم مجهول فتستطيع أن تملأ تصورك بما شئت فقد تظنه رجل ومن جنسيتك، ثم تكتشف أن المتصل كان امرأة صومالية تحدثك من بلاد الأسكيمو! لكن هذا الاكتشاف -أو عدمه- منفصل عن الحقيقة السابقة وهي أن الاتصال يدل على المتصل.
ثانيا: لا يوجد تعارض بين الأسباب الطبيعية وبين مسببية الله لها، فيمكن تقريب الصورة بأن يقال بأن الله تعالى سبب بعيد والأسباب التي نراها ونكتشفها أسباب قريبة.

5- إحدى الحجج الجيدة عند الملاحدة سؤالهم من خلق الله والعياذ بالله؟ أو لماذا لا يحتاج الخالق لخالق؟ لماذا لا يكون العالم هو من خلقنا أي أن الأمر عملية طبيعية؟ والجواب في 3 مقدمات:
أولًا: نحن نقول بأنه لو لم يوجد السبب الأول أو العلة الاولى لم توجد المعلولات، فلما كان هنالك معلولات تبين وجود علة أولى، ويمكن تقريب الصورة بأن نقول بأن الجندي لكي يطلق الرصاص لابد أن يستأذن من رئيسه، فلو استأذن كل رئيس من رئيس أعلى رتبة منه إلى ما لانهاية فلن تنطلق الرصاصة، لكن لكونها انطلقت علمنا أن هناك من لم يحتج للاستئذان كرئيس الدولة مثلا، لذا نقول بأنه لا يمكن أن توجد سلسلة لا نهائية من العلل لا عقلًا ولا في الواقع، أما عقلًا فقد ظهر ذلك، وأما في الواقع فلأن اللانهائية لا توجد خارج الذهن، فخارج الذهن دائما يحوي موجودات محدودة!
ثانيا: إذن تبين أن وجود الخالق ضروري، ولكي نقرب الصورة أكثر نقول بأن الوجوب بالنسبة للخالق ضروري، كضرورة كون الملح مالحًا، وعدم حاجة الملح إلى ملح آخر يقوم بتمليحه!
ثالثا: إذا أثبتنا وجود سبب أول أو علة أولى لكل الحوادث، نبحث حينها في طبيعة السبب، ولأن الجماد لا يمكن أن يعطي علما، تعين أن السبب الأول عالمٌ، وقس على الحكمة وغيرها من صفات الباري.
وأحيل في تفصيل الرد على سؤال من خلق الله، إلى كتاب مخصص في الرد عليه، وهو كتاب من خلق الله؟ لمالك مهدي السويعدي، ويشترط كيف تفهمه جيدًا أن تكون قد قرأت قبله كتبًا في علم المنطق وعلم نظرية المعرفة وربما الفلسفة وتجد بعض ما فيه مشروح في كتب علم الكلام، وهو العلم الباحث في العقيدة عند معظم الفرق الإسلامية، وسأذكر 3 كتب كمقدمات:
ميزان الفكر لأكاديمية الحكمة العقلية
مناهج التفكير لأكاديمية الحكمة العقلية
نافذة على الفلسفة

6- يعترض الكاتب على دليل الحدوث قائلا بانه لا يثبت الإله ولا يثبت علمه وحكمته، ونقول نعم دليل الحدوث يثبت الحادث والقديم، يثبت وجود الخالق، وبقية الأدلة تثبت أشياء أخرى، فيجب التفريق بين الخالق والإله المعبود.

7- يقول عن "المعاد" أو يوم القيامة، أنه ناتج عن أن البشر لما تيقنوا أن الموت لن يترك أحدا منهم، لما تيقنوا من ذلك قاموا باصطناع أوهام عن حياة ثانية ساعدتهم في تقليل قلقهم وخوفهم من الموت إذ أنهم يحبون الحياة أصلًا، والجواب من 3 مقدمات:
1- دل العقل أنه لا بد أن يقتص الله تعالى -للمظلوم- من الظالم، أو يعوضه عن تفاوت معيشته أو صعوبتها إن قلت عن المعدل الطبيعي بين إخوانه من البشر، التفاوت الناتج عن قضاء الله وقدره، فإذا لم يحصل هذا في حياة المظلوم يكون ذلك عبث من الله، وذلك قبيح، فتعين أن يوجد الاقتصاص أو التعويض خارج الحياة الأولى.
2- جاء الدين ليقول بأن ذلك الاقتصاص أو التعويض سيحدث في يوم خاص ومكان خاص.
3- هناك من لا يؤمن بالدين ولا يؤمن بالخالق ولكنه يؤمن بضرورة الاقتصاص من الظالم متى توفرت الفرصة.
لذا فإن سلمنا بأن البشر يصطنعون أوهامًا حول طريقة انتقامهم أو اقتصاصهم ممن ظلمهم، إلا أن المبدأ نفسه موجود في اعتقادات البشر والمبدا الأعم منه وهو الأمل موجود كذلك، فما أو من الذي غرس هذا الأمل فينا؟

8- يقول بأن الدين يمكن أن يجعلك تقتل نفسك في سبيله، والجواب:
أن ما قلته لو كان شرًا دائما وفي كل الحالات، فشره أقل ممن لا يعترف بالدين ولا يؤمن بالخالق فيقتل أعدادًا هائلة من البشر، كمن قتلوا الملايين في الحربين العالميتين، شر أقل من شر! وربما يعترض أحدهم بالقول بأن المتدينين شاركوا في الحربين، والرد بأننا لو سلمنا بأن أغلبهم كانوا متد��نين لكن العقيدة التي يدافعون عنها التي اضطرتهم إلى الحرب حتما ليست عقيدة دينية بل عقيدة علمانية، والمعروف أن العلمانية محايدة تجاه الخالق لا تثبته ولا تنفيه، فهي كافرة به كفر اللامبالاة.

9- يقول في رده على مقولة "الإلحاد قتل من الناس أكثر ممن قتلهم الدين" يقول بأن الإلحاد ليس دينا، وليس له كتاب مقدس، وليس له نظام إيماني أو آيديولوجية، بعكس الدين الذي قد يأمرك بالقتل، والجواب من مقدمتين:
1- المتدين تستطيع محاكمته إلى كتابه وبكتابه أو إلى نظامه أو بنظامه الإيماني، يعني سواء قلنا بأن الأخلاق جميعها آتية من الدين أو أن الجزء الأكبر منها، فإنك تستطيع إلزام المتدين وإفحامه لأن نظامه مطلق وليس نسبي، وأقصد بالمطلق أن الحق والباطل فيه يمكن الاستدلال عليه منطقيًا -بصرف النظر عن الصحة والبطلان-، أما النسبي فهو الخاضع لتصويت الناس فما كان حقا اليوم يمكن أن يصبح باطلا في مكان أو زمان أو مجتمع آخر.
2- لكن الملحد بماذا وكيف تلزمه وليس لديه مرجعية مطلقة، وإنما مرجعية نسبية ترجع إلى اختيار المجتمع أو اختياره هو شخصيًا؟ بل أكثر من هذا نقول بأن الملحد لا يحق له الاعتراض على الجرائم لأن الحكم عليها بالخطأ حكم نسبي -باستثناء الملاحدة الذين يستخدمون حجية العقل في معرفة بعض الأخلاق وهم قلة-، فالخلاصة بأنه صحيح ليس عند الملحد كتاب يأمره بالقتل، لكن كذلك ليس عنده كتاب ينهاه عن القتل! فلا عبرة بعدد القتلى بل العبرة في وجود المانع من القتل، والمتدين لديه المانع سواء اتفقنا مع صحة المانع أو لا.

10- يقول في رده على الاستدلال بتجارب الإيمان أثناء الاحتضار ورؤية الملائكة والأنوار وغيره يقول بأنها من صنع الإنسان لطمأنة نفسه أو على الأكثر لا يمكن الثقة بعقل مريض متعب يمكن أن يخلق هلوسات، والجواب:
نحن لا نستدل على صحة الدين أو وجود الخالق بهذه التجارب، لكنها قرينة ضمن الكثير من القرائن على وجود جانب غيبي، وعلى أن الإنسان يؤمن بفطرته أن الإنسان يستحق الخير أو العقوبة بحسب أعماله والعجيب أن الكاتب يؤكد هذه القرائن عندما ذكر عبارتين مشهورتين عن انقلاب الإيمان وهما:
1- لا يوجد ملحد في خنادق الحرب There are no atheists in foxholes.
2- يكون الشخص ملحدًا إلى أن تبدأ الطائرة بالسقوط Only an atheist until the plane start to fall.
ثم يشرح أكثر فيقول بأن الإنسان في تلك الحالة لا يبحث عن الخالق بل يبحث عما يطمئنه وهذا غاية الأمر، والرد أنه يمكن أن يتطمن الإنسان بالكثير من الأمور، فلماذا اختار الخالق؟
بل هناك دلالات أعمق تكلم عنها كتاب اتجاه الدين في مناحي الحياة وبالتحديد في قسم "الدين والإلهام".

11- شبهة أخيرة تقول بأن استفادة المؤمن من الدين أو الصلاة أو الدعاء لا تثبت وجود الخالق، والجواب: نعم لا تثبت لكنها تثبت أنها أمر عملاني يحتاجه الإنسان، فلذلك كان معظم البشر معظم التاريخ متدينين، ويقول جون لوك الفيلسوف ورائد الليبرالية في ضرورة وجود الدين أو الإيمان بالخالق بالنسبة للمجتمع، يقول في كتابه رسالة في التسامح "A Letter Concerning Toleration" عن أن الملحدين لا تسامح معهم.
يقول: "لا يمكن التسامح على الإطلاق مع الذين ينكرون وجود الله -أي الملحدين-، فالوعد والعهد والقسم من حيث هي روابط المجتمع البشري، ليس لها قيمة بالنسبة للملحد، فإنكار الله حتى لو كان بالفكر فقط يفكك جميع الأشياء."
"Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises; covenants; and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God though but even in thought, dissolves all."


لماذا السفسطة بعد التحليل المنطقي؟
لقد وقع الكاتب في السفسطة للأسف، ثم جعل الاستدلال على وجود الخالق عز وجل من قبيل ما وقع فيه من السفسطة وإن لم يصفها بذلك، حيث زعم بأنه يمكن أن لا نكون موجودين الآن وأن لا يكون هناك واقع، وهذا لعمري هو التطرف في السفسطة وأقصى درجاتها، وإن لم يؤمن بذلك فمجرد الشك يسقط كل شيء، ثم أوصى الكاتب أن نتعامل مع الواقع كما هو لأنه لا يمكن أن يستدل على بطلان الزعم السابق! وأقول في الجواب:
بأن هناك أشياء تتجاوز الاستدلال بل يستحيل أن يستدل عليها، ولكنها حقائق، ومنها العلم الحضوري كما ستعرف في علم المنطق إن قرأت كتاب ميزان الفكر لأكاديمية الحكمة العقلية
ومن أمثلة ذلك قانون عدم اجتماع النقيضين وعدم ارتفاعهما، ومنها نفس الإنسان العاقلة المفكرة، فبوجود هذه الموجودات نتنبه -ولا أقول نستدل- إلى وجود الواقع.
ولكن كيف أصبح الاستدلال على الخالق من قبيل تلك السفسطة؟! من أجل الجدل فقط، فلنفترض ان الخالق جسم ذو طول وعرض وعمق وأنه موجود في الكون أو خارجه فكيف يزعم هذا بأن زعمه ينطبق هنا؟
وأحيلكم إلى الرواية الشيعية التي ذكرتها في أول المراجعة، أما لو افترضنا أن الخالق مجرد عن الجسمية فأين الإشكال؟ يمكن تقريب الصورة فقط بالقول بأن الأفكار والأحلام بل العلوم التي في الذهن كلها ليست مادية.
يقول الكاتب في معرض سفسطته بأننا لا نحتاج لمعارف يقينية كي نتعامل مع العالم، والرد، بأن هذا الادعاء هل هو معرفة يقينية أم ظنية؟ لماذا هذا التناقض؟!
طبعا كعادة كل السفسطائيين تجد السفسطائي يتعامل مع الواقع على أنه حقيقي يقيني، فلا تجده يشك إلا نادرًا، ومن هنا كان العلاج الوحيد كما يقول بعض الفلاسفة هو ضرب السفسطائي أو حرقه قليلًا.


أما قصة الكاتب وردته عن الإسلام:
فهي قصة مؤلمة أذكرها مختصرة، وقد ذكرها الكاتب في نهاية الكتاب. هذا الشاب كان يعيش في إيران، وأدى فهم والديه الخاطئ للإسلام (الإسلام عامة لا خصوص المذاهب) إلى تحويل الدين إلى عبء، حاول الكاتب بكل قوة وتراجيديا مبكية أن يحمله ولكن كان أقوى منه، حتى أنه فعل فعلة تطلب شجاعة قصوى لكنه لم يفلح، فانهزم وقرر الكفر وتبني الإلحاد، أسأل الله تعالى أن يهديه ويهدي كل طالب حق، وأن يثبتنا على الإسلام وولاية أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام.

[Scott Holstad · Rating 4 out of 5]

First of all, I'd like to say to the Christians trashing this book, you're all idiots, ESPECIALLY pseudo-intellectual ROD with his April 2016 review of some 60,000 words or so. If I had the time to write a response to his review, I would, and I would show him the flaws in HIS assertions, but who in the world has that kind of time -- except a fundie sheeple. One thing that was funny was his response to the the author's statement that Jesus's followers and contemporaries were illiterate and obviously wouldn't have written any firsthand accounts or quotes down. Rod states "Says who?" and goes on to say there were plenty of literate people back then. Yes Rod, you're partially right, but your implied assertion is wrong. Virtually every Bible scholar, as well as historians, archaeologists, and others, note that Jesus and his disciples, companions, etc, were from Galilee, which was a Roman backwater with an estimated literacy rate of 1% (Ehrman), and of those, that probably implied reading, but NOT writing. Yes, some Jewish priests, etc, were literate and the Roman officials were literate, but A) the Romans kept excellent records of practically everything and there is NO mention of Jesus Christ in any Roman records of the first century, nor are there Jewish mentions -- with ONE minor exception. Jewish historian Josephus mentioned Jesus one time, just in passing, in a local history of Jerusalem and the surrounding area. The fact is, virtually all reading and writing from that era were in Latin or Greek, and virtually no one could read or write Aramaic, and most important of all -- and this is well documented -- aside from the one Jesus side mention by Josephus, NO independent documents from the first century exist that even MENTION Jesus Christ! None. The first "Christian" author who is known was Paul, and he began writing some 15-20 years after Jesus died and never even met him. Moreover, Paul wrote almost nothing about Jesus in any of his 13 letters. He mentions Jesus 7 total times, and never addresses key issues such as the virgin birth, his baptism, desert temptation, nothing of his ministry or miracles, nothing of his disciples (as opposed to apostles -- because there is a difference), nothing of his crucifixion, no details of his resurrection, nothing on his family, virtually nothing at all. Most Bible scholars believe this is because Paul didn't know anything about any of this, nothing about Jesus's life at all, and in fact, he never even met any of Jesus's disciples until three years after his conversion, and even then, probably only three. And going on, a schism developed between Peter and James vs Paul, as to what Jesus's ministry was to be, and Paul made up his own "religion" he was going to preach to whomever he wished, disciples of Jesus himself be d**ned! Indeed, Jesus told his disciples to minister to the Jews and NOT the Gentiles during his ministry, yet Paul created his own "brand" of Christianity that destroyed that of Peter and James -- Jesus's actual disciples and witnesses of his words. Further, not only was Jesus, his disciples and his companions almost 100% certainly illiterate (Acts even states Peter was illiterate, Rod!), and Mark, the first gospel, wasn't written until some 30+ years after Jesus's death, followed by the remaining gospels, written 45-90 years after his death, there's literally no possible way Jesus's words could have been recorded accurately, having been passed down orally for generations -- read the studies on that topic -- and the authors of the gospels are universally believed to be highly educated Gentiles writing in Greek, not the original language, and it's widely believed none of them ever met Jesus, or even met anyone who had. And Rod, your explanation of the empty tomb discrepancies are beyond stupid. Those are just one example of the hundreds of contradictions in the Bible. For instance, in the first two chapters of Genesis, there are TWO creation stories -- how do you know which one to believe? In two of the gospels, there are genealogies for Jesus provided, showing he descended from David, per the alleged prophecy. A) They don't agree at all. Not even close. Virtually none of the names match, and one goes back about 14 generations and the other over 20. B) More importantly, ancient Jewish genealogies were traced back through the men, the patriarchs. However, Jesus's only human parent was MARY! Joseph wasn't his birth father, was not related to him by blood, so these genealogies are BS, proving that Jesus was NOT of the line of David, thus destroying that most important prophecy. Rod, there are hundreds of other contradictions that destroy the Bible's legitimacy (Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, vividly describing his own death and burial, while also stating that no one knows where he is buried? Yeah, that fits. LOL!), but maybe you should pick up the Bible and read it for yourself to see just how little agreement there is within its pages. And then we can start talking about God's many dozens of genocides, infanticides, jealousy, hatred, cannibalism, etc, because I have the actual verses from your own holy book -- the word of god -- to prove what a monster he was.

As to the book, frankly there are better books and better authors writing on this subject, but I felt the author did a fairly good job at exposing the fraud, contradictions, hypocrisies, etc, and he could have written about 500 more pages, ... but he didn't need to because he proved his point. Christian critics of this book have no basis for criticism because every one of their pathetic arguments can be countered by logic and by the contents of the Bible itself. Something these sheeple can't and won't ever admit. Recommended.

[Travis Rainwater · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most atheist will be familiar with the arguments in this book, but Navabi gives clear and concise responses. It helped me clarify my own thinking. I usually try to avoid books that I know will reinforce what I already think, but I am glad I read this as I beleive it will help me be more "to the point" in future debates with beleivers.

[Arnoldas Rutkauskas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gan svariais argumentais paremtas veikalas apie tai, kodėl šventraščiuose tiek daug alogiškumo ir supriešinimo, kodėl Sagan'as buvo teisus, o Pascal'is klydo, kodėl geriems darbams daryti nebūtina religinė bendruomenė ir kodėl norint būti moraliu nereikia jokios religijos.

[Richard Lawrence · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quick read and to the point. All the major objections and arguments are presented along with clear and effective responses. Well worth the read.

[Ashkan Karimi · Rating 5 out of 5]

سلام خدمت همه دوستان اهل مطالعه، عرض کنم کتاب «چرا خدا وجود ندارد» اثر آرمین نوابی اولین مطالعه من در باب مبحث وجود/عدم وجود خدا بود و همانطور که نویسنده در مقدمه اشاره میکنه، این کتاب نه فقط مخصوص خداناباور ها بلکه به نوعی برای خداباور ها هم مفید هست، چون که به هر دو طیف و حتی طیف سوم (افرادی که تصمیم قطعی نگرفتند)، کمک خواهد کرد تا از موضع مطلع تری به مباحثه بپردازند. چند نکته خیلی خوب توی کتاب دیدم که فهرست میکنم:
۱- مطالب کتاب در عین سادگی، مختصر هم هستند و صرفا شما رو با ایده های اصلی خیلی خوب آشنا میکنند.
۲- نویسنده اصل بی طرفی رو به نظرم کامل رعایت کرده و خودش سعی در قالب کردن یه نوع سیستم فکری به نفع هیچ طیف خاصی نداره.
۳- در انتهای هر موضوع یا فصل، منابع مفیدی که به اونا استدلال کرده رو ذکر کرده پس شما با حداقل ده منبع مهم و مفصل دیگه در این باب آشنا میشوید، از جمله آثار و کارهای دانشمندان و محققانی مانند ریچارد داوکینز، فیل زاکرمن، سم هریس و ...
در ادامه می‌خوام دو سه جمله از کتاب رو اینجا نقل کنم(البته به زبان خودم):
۱_ در پاسخ به این استدلال بسیار رایج که علم تا به حال به پاسخ قاطعی در مورد منشأ هستی نرسیده پس باید خالقی برای طراحی اون وجود داشته باشه، میشه گفت که داشنمدان سیستم های پیچیده بسیاری رو نشون دادند که نیاز به طراح هوشمندی نداره مثلا نظریه فرگشت که بحث انتخاب طبیعی رو مطرح می‌کنه و میگه چطور این انتخاب های ساده به خلق موجودات پیچیده ای منجر میتونن بشن. حتی میشه این طور پاسخ داد که اگر پیچیدگی به خالق نیاز داره، پس چرا این قانون شامل خود خالق هم نمیشه؟ یعنی باید خالق دیگه ای مسئول خلق این خدای مورد نظر خداباوران باشد و این می‌تونه تا بینهایت ادامه پیدا کنه. یعنی عدم درک فعلی ما در مورد نحوه آفرینش کل هستی نباید لزوما به یک دلیل و عامل ماوراء طبیعی (بخوانید خدا) منتهی بشه.
۲_ برخی برای وجود خدا این استدلال رو میارن که خدا قابل توضیح نیست و فقط باید بهش ایمان داشته باشید؛ در تلاش برای ارائه یک ضد استدلال در مقابل این گفته، میتوان بیان کرد که اگر چیزی قابل درک و توضیح نیست پس احتمالا توجیه منطقی برای قبول آن نیز وجود ندارد و صرف ایمان داشتن عده ای (هر چند بسیار زیاد) به خدا گواه بر صحت اون نمیشه. به عبارتی یک خدای وصف ناپذیر رو شاید نشه انکار کرد ولی مطمئنا نمیشه اثباتش هم کرد.
در کل نویسنده با مطرح کردن بیست استدلال رایج و بیان ایرادات مستتر در هر یک میخواد بگه این خداباوران هستند که یک ادعای عجیب رو مطرح کرده و برای توجیه اون حتی دلایل عجیبتری میارند، یعنی ایده وجود یک خدای واحد و نامرئی و خیرخواه مطلق و قادر و... یک ایده ابطال ناپذیر هست که هیچ مدرک مستدلی برای صحت اون نمیشه ارائه کرد.

[Selkis · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Why There Is No God" is a very short, quick to read book, I finished it in a day. It's a nice little overview of the 20 most common arguments against atheism and an atheist's (former Muslim) reply to them. His arguments are thought-provoking and he presents them in a very easy to understand and concise way. However, if you've read a lot about atheism/religion before, there won't be much in there that's new to you. I would treat it as an introduction to the most common arguments used by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. But it's definitely a good starting point if you're interested in the topic and I would recommend it.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a great book! This is my first atheism book and it did not disappoint! Half the arguments I had to think REALLY hard about them to understand the concept, but that is because I am 14 and was luckily never indoctrinated into religion (thankfully, I have very accepting parents who are somewhat religious). This book has cemented my atheism and has opened doors to new questions. I read this secretly with one of my best friends who’s unaccepting parents still don’t know she’s an atheist, and we didn’t get caught so yay! I feel like she deserved to read this book, but she also asked me to read it with her secretly so I didn’t force it down her throat! 😄Thank you Armin Navabi for writing this book!

[Ashraf Bashir · Rating 2 out of 5]

The title is misleading, it should be called “why the arguments for the existence of God are wrong”. The book doesn't explain “why there is no God” ! ... Anyway, the arguments are basic, and no depth in each chapter. I expected more in-depth philosophical dialogues to be contained in this book! The book is very simplified to a limit that it became useless!

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just finished reading this book and I absolutely loved it. I have recently finished reading Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan and this was an excellent chaser! I come from a very fundamentalist christian family and really needed a book like this that speaks objectively rather than just god-bashing and speaking negatively of believers, as most of my life I was one. I showed my wife the cover of this book yesterday and just laughed as I told her that I would have NEVER allowed myself to consider reading a book with such a "harsh and offensive" title. I am glad I'm in a place in my life where I am open to reading things without letting my cognitive dissonance stop me. The book presents many common themes in a very direct, concise, and insightful way. I would recommend anyone to first open their mind and then open this book. Be skeptical, ask questions, and allow yourself to go wherever it is the evidence takes you.

[Samuel Ronicker · Rating 1 out of 5]

Quite possibly worst counter arguments against God

This author takes the weakest of Internet arguments and presents them in book form. He constantly insists there's no evidence for God, and yet in doing so he undermines his own writings. If there truly is no evidence for God, then why write a book countering evidence for God? He refuses to tackle the argument from the resurrection of Christ as an argument for God and has only "science" as an answer to the deeper arguments for God (like the cosmological argument). He constantly misrepresents Christianity and apparently only consulted atheists as sources to regurgitate the wimpy arguments offered by the so called, New Atheists. This book is not worth your time or your money. Even Dawkins' God Delusion was better (though not by much!).

[Khawla Bouaziz · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think that the best part of this book is the ending. Because trying to convince whoever that there are no Gods is always a matter of the time you're having the talk, the situation and the mental state of both atheist and theist. The 20 sections were incredibly helpful. But the end, when Armin was trying to find Allah so bad insidely believing he exists, but getting hit by the deception and realising there is no such thing is just what anyone need in their lives. Even a book about 100 situations sometimes is never enough for a theist. But few situations in life make you wake up and realise that you were looking for a black cat in a dark room where there is actually no cat. I absolutely recommend this for anyone curious about theism and atheism.

[Abdulrahman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good entry to understand the point of view and arguments of atheism. It's like a little booklet that takes questions and arguments by deists and then explain the counter argument of atheists in few pages. Its not the best writing you will ever encounter, nor have original thoughts, yet it does it's purpose quite well for what it is.

Its really good to read something we are not used to, to think and see the point of few of others makes it good point to start conversation, build bridges, and expand your mind about views of the world. How to question things, think in philosophical and scientific way, while tackling a big and flexible subject like faith.

[Rebekah Kohlhepp · Rating 4 out of 5]

All in all, I think this book really accomplishes its goal. It’s laid out in twenty short chapters, each addressing a theistic argument, all over the course of 120 pages. Some of the arguments and topics include the arguments from design, cosmology, morality, scripture, personal experience, and the existence of miracles, prayer, logic, meaning, and martyrdom.

Knowing quite well that the debate on the existence of a deity is massive and could probably fill a whole library, I think Navabi did a great job of introducing several major topics that, when delved into in detail, cover a lot of ground.

Read more: https://sheseeksnonfiction.blog/2019/...

[Daniel · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was hoping for more. He fails to really give an adequate answer to any objection by taking every objection in its weakest form. There are plenty of arguments out there that dive in deeper from all sides of the debate. This book should be seen as an embarrassment to any atheist. You would be better off spending some time watching real thinkers debate these issues on YouTube.

[Udit Nair · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my initial reads when I was facing the so called religion crisis. I must say this book indeed tackles many concepts scientifically. Its indeed a great read for a fence sitter to consolidate his or her belief system. I also agree that hardcore believers wont really find it entertaining because it does attack the core beliefs. But then you cannot write about atheism and not offend believers.

[Khaled Muhammad · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is arguably the worst and least philosophical treatment of God’s existence. Scratch that, this is not EVEN a treatment of God’s existence as promised, it is, instead, a collection of responses mostly to arguments no theist philosopher has ever made (and where this isn’t the case, his responses are atrocious: “who created God, then?”). The title is clearly clickbait.

[Mohamed INi · Rating 1 out of 5]

أهذا مبلغ علمكم؟!
مستوى الملحدين العقلي يُرثى له حقيقة. القوم بضاعتهم في المعقول كبضاعة جدتي في ميكانيكا الكم، الفارق أن جدتي -حفظها الله- لا تتحدث فيما لا تُحسن.
رحمة الله على عقول قوم ظنوا بها ظنونا، وهي في الجهل غارقة ...