Customer Reviews

The Atheist Debater's Handbook

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

This book provides an excellent bird's eye view of atheistic philosophy, but falls remarkably short of being remotely useful when arguing with the average zealot.

I bought this book pumped about getting those fantastic barbs that one can plant quickly and effectively. What I got was a rehash of the month we spent on atheistic/theistic arguments in my freshman Philosophy 101 course. In being a quick rehash, it does a commendable job. The arguments are well spelled out in simple terms and frequent examples are given. The book is a very quick read. There are only 124 pages.

For quick shots in for an argument with your born-again cousin, I recommend you look elsewhere. I highly recommend From Preacher To Atheist and the Jesus Puzzle.

However there are some interesting tid-bits that I managed to file away in the Useful In An Argument file. The chapter on the problem of evil is quite well done. And as every casual atheist debater knows, the first thing you have to establish is that the burden of proof is on the theistic point of view. You will find lots of ammo on this topic. The chapters on God and the Mind and God on the Universe are useful, but you will find more good information elsewhere.

All in all, I would contend that this book provides an excellent introduction to scholarly study of theistic/atheistic arguments, but lacks the punch and brevity of argument required for more casual debate.

Three stars -HawkeyeGK

The Atheist Debater's Handbook is a relatively decent introduction to atheistic argumentation. Herein you will find the tools to attack most standard pro-religion/pro-Christianity arguments. On the negative side, the work lacks philosophical depth. While it may prove useful to atheists with little philosophical background, anyone wishing to seriously challenge intelligent theists will have to delve deeper. Toward this end, Douglas Krueger's What is Atheism? A Short Introduction is recommended. For still greater depth M. Martin's excellent Atheism: A Philosophical Justification and J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism should be consulted.--Greg Klebanoff, Ph.D. philosophy

For the more philosophically unsophisticated, which is most everyone, this is an excellent way to get to the heart of the main objections to the traditional belief in the Judeo-Xian God. The main arguments/issues should be filled in with further reading, since this is just an intro-duction. Objections that the book is "thin" in content, or "philosophically naive" are unfair, since this book is at attempt to take the beginner right to the most serious (and in most cases, sound) objections to the existence of the traditional Judeo-Christian God.

The book is a collection of refutations of ways of concluding from philosophical propositions that God exists. To this writer, an old math professor with no special training in traditional philosophy, the book might have been more useful for debates in the 14th century than it is today. I find much of it hard to follow. I am also suspicious of arguments based on vague generalities.

As a typical example, 9 pages are devoted to refuting the proposition that God exists because the Universe must have been created by someone. To me it suffices to say that at some level we must suspend our anthropomorphic notion that every sophisticated thing must be the work of a person, otherwise we would need to postulate an infinite sequence of ever more powerful creators. The theists accept that God exists without a person having created Him. All that needs to be said then is that it is just as reasonable, and much simpler, to accept that the Universe exists without a person having created it.

This was my first book on atheism three years ago, and I couldn't have asked for a better introduction. It's concise, relatively short, and effectively debunks the main arguments for God's existense. I kept saying to myself, "So *this* is why that argument never made sense to me!" Someone who has already read a book or two on atheism may not be as impressed, but the author uses enough clever analogies to be well worth a run through.

It's a good book for those who have just started exploring their atheism or for those who want to know the basics of non-belief. This book was one of the first I read when I was questioning what I believed, and it helped me explore my own thoughts. It's very basic, though. If you want a deeper and more thorough book, you should look elsewhere. This book just touches base with the some of the general reasons atheists see religion and god as illogical. It wouldn't be good for actually debating in everyday life.

I was seeking a basic introduction to the more common arguments for and against belief in God so I bought this book based on its title and the fact it is short. It makes a reasonable attempt to outline arguments against theistic belief (i.e., belief in a God as usually defined by major religions). It addresses the common arguments put forward by believers in God (design, the first cause, knowing god through experience, faith, etc.).

In purchasing this book I had sought brevity of argument, and I was a little disappointed. Although the arguments are not long it doesn't provide the simple one or two line "debating points" some readers might be looking for to help them negotiate the next pair of door-knowking Mormons or Witnesses they encounter. People seeking dot-point replies to theistic assertions will not find them in this book. Should something that requires the reader to make their own summary list be called a "debater's handbook"? Maybe. But, it's too detailed to qualify as "atheism for dummies".

The Atheist Debater's Handbook is dry reading. Given that there is a pretty strong element of the ridiculous in lots of religious belief, a little humour would not have gone astray. As an undergraduate student a professor once described an essay I wrote as a "tradesman-like effort"; I'd say the same of this book. It is solid but unspectacular.

This book addresses the traditional arguments for the existence of God. Simple examples are used to illustrate the key points. However, given the recent arrival of more technical books which focus on the appearance of design in nature (e.g., The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, The Mind of God, Nature's Destiny), there probably is not enough detail in the discussion to win over the scientifically inclined agnostic reader. On the other hand, there are also chapters that deal specifically with Christianity and Jesus that are worth reading. All in all, Johnson offers unique perspectives that anyone who asks "Does God exist?" should deal with.

WOW, am I dissapointed? I had more fun reading the begats. I don't think there was enough information here to allow me to debate with kids in a bible study class. Extremely repetative on every topic. Examples abound when one or two would suffice. The only reference to biblical scripture is in chapter fourteen. When a theist debates, they bring the bible. If you want to join the debate, you MUST have bible references as well. I suspect the author attempted to turn a two-page brochure into a 134 page book through over-justification. This book, in my opinion, does not live up to it's title. Even the reviewers on the reverse of the book do not speak of their new found debating skills. As for me, I'm an Atheist and believe that if there were a god, he would not live in the shadows of a mans mind. Do youself a favor, get a bible and a highlighter. First off, read 2Kings19 and Isaiah37 both at the same time. You'll be amazed at what two different writers, in different years, had to say about the same topic. Is that a major typo or what? Then get the "Book of Enoch" by Ron Brown and wonder why it was left out of the cannonized bible by the "Council of Laodicea" in the year 364AD, one of over 40 scriptures (books)banned by the council (the holy fathers). nuf said...

I can't say much more than the previous reviewers have said, except that Chapter XIV alone is worth the price of the book. "God and Jesus" will hit you like a hammer.