Customer Reviews
Finally, a fair account - By: A. Ashman, 18 Nov 2008 
A number of readers will come across this book thinking it to be some form of 'God Delusion' style rebuttal of religion. In fact, the book simply states what positive atheism is & explores the reasoning behind it. There is no need to debate whether the argumentsin the book are sufficient to declare God as no more - that's simply not what the book aims to do. Just read it with a view to understanding what atheism can be if it is used positively, as opposed to expecting a vociferous offensive against religion.
Atheism - The Only Proposition Supported By The Evidence - By: Fred, 07 Aug 2008 If you've ever wondered what an atheist really thinks then this book is a pretty accurate account. If you are an atheist then this book summarises the main philosophical & evidential stances that makes atheism such a strong position.
The book shows how tough it is to deny the evidence for the universe lacking a 'father figure' like any of the gods proposed by various religions throughout the ages. An atheist is simply someone who has looked at the evidence, perused the holy books & found the claims to be severley wanting. Atheism is a view that is well supported by the evidence & is a claim that there are no supernatural forces at workin the universe. Many of the usual arguments for God's existence simply violate the rules of rationality that we all adoptin other areas of our life. Atheism is simply applying those same standards of evidence to the proposition of the existence of Gods. For instance, the absence of evidence isn't absence of evidence argument is often wheeled out as some form of proof of God's existence. However, this same stance could be applied to the Loch Ness monster - a beast that has been thoroughly searched for yet no reliable or credible evidence has been found. The absence of evidence for such an entity following a thorough search can be seen as clear evidence of absence.
Baggini also clears up the agnostic-atheism debate quite nicely by saying that we can never reliably know anything with 100% certainty (except for maybe 1+1=2). since we cannot know 100% doesn't necessarily mean the evidence leaves a 50/50 probability of a proposition or its opposite being true. This is something we applyin real life... I don't know if there is or isn't a china teapot orbiting the Earth, but is it really wise to be agnostic about such a proposition. We don't believein anythingin life (rationally) without evidence for it. The is no evidence for God & hence no reason to believe. In fact the evidence is stronglyin favour of naturalistic forces & therefore the proposition of Atheism.
The book discusses nicely how morality is separate from God & that both theists & non-theists are still responsible for their moral choices.
What of the meaning of life? Do we need God to find meaningin life? The notion that we survive our death, while flyingin the face of the evidence that consciousness dies with the brain, rather detracts from the meaning of life. When one faces life face on as the only life they will get then meaning takes on a new dimension.
Theists can deny the profound arguments basedin this book but they must do soin opposition to the evidence. Atheists do not have the luxury as their beliefs by definition are constrained to natural evidence... as the natural world is all we can actually know anything about.
The most uncritical, biased, flawed book of reasoning I have ever read! - By: A. Jeans, 11 Mar 2008 
I was for once going to read an atheistic bookin the hopes that it would be unbiased & actually give reasons for its own worldview instead of merely pointing out the faults with others. This book was a major disappointment! Let me show you why.
To begin with, Baggini starts by saying that atheism is the negation of theism. So far so good, I thought. Then all of a suddenin the next paragraph he says that we can not learn anything from knowing this. What a load of rubbish! If not for the word atheism there wouldn't be any atheism. The earliest known civilizations have all been religious, & so it is perfectly logical to believe that atheism is parasitic on religion. The very word tells us that, & since we don't have evidence for people believingin strict Naturalism before Theism or Polytheism we have every reasonable ground to say this & be consistent. If Baggini simply doesn't want to admit this it is his problem & not ours as readers. What he does is substitute historical fact for personal satisfaction, & only amateurs do that.
This is not worst of all. Sadly Baggini doesn't believein the premise of his own book. He says that atheism is not parasitic on religion, but this whole book proves otherwise! Baggini never gives his view first before criticizing the religious view. Instead Baggini chooses to show the flaws of religion (a perfect way to brainwash uncritical young readers) before he gives his views on morals. I can understand why he does this, because as far as religion goes the evidence supports it way more than atheism. One will find the reasoning (if it can even be called that) that atheism doesn't really "have to" show why we should accept morals permeating the book. Instead we are supposed to believe it is a given without reasonable grounds. That is not an intellectually satisfying worldview first of all & therefore not better off than Theism. He also uses Kant as an argument for atheism, of course never mentioning that Kant did believein God (though he was a deist) & realized that without a God his reason was ultimately untrustworthy.
Second of all (and this deserves more attention than it will probably ever get) is that he seriously & atrociously misquotes Jesus, saying that Bush followed the principle of Jesus & that he therefore must have been inspired by Jesus. This is absolute horse-manure! To top it off, he even says that the two are equally justifiedin their claims! What reasonable person would ever say such a thing! I quote: "It is simply not true that a person who is not for Bush or Jesus must be against them."
Baggini, if you do not know enough history to know that Jesus & Bush are near paradoxical opposites then please don't let the uninformed readers suffer for it!
Last & most horribly of all:
On pg. 82 Baggini does not answer the critique on atheism as a means of nazism, but instead (as I have already pointed out) bashes on religion, specifically Catholicism, pointing to the fascist Francoin the Civil War as a scapegoat. Then he says: "This was not atheist fascism but an expressly Catholic one." He also points to Mussolini & others to make his point, clearly judging Catholicism on what it has donein the past, & not on what the central figure of its doctrine (Jesus) has done. He moves on to Soviet Communism, trying to show that even though it was inspired by Karl Marx, Karl Marx should not be blamed. Then he says (pg. 86):
"Christian critics who also think that the Soviet Union provides some kind of refutation of atheism would, by their own logic, have to accept that atrocities such as the crusades or inquisitions refute Christianity."
Hmmm... Wasn't he trying to refute Christianity on the basis of what the Catholic church has done (page 82) & NOT on what Jesus had done? Why should he have the right to judge Christianity based on what the church has done when christians don't have the right to judge atheism based on what atheist regimes have done? That is nothing but plain favoritism!
Besides, he was trying to show that Nazis were very affiliated with the church, which is just not historically true, & no onein their right mind would say that Christianity (regardless of any Churches actions) had any major part to do with the war. Besides, Hitler wasn't a Christian so why should I look at what his regime did if Baggini's principle still stands? Jesus never proclaimed war, but peace, & its time people realize that instead of going to the faulty predecessors to see what Christianity is "really about". If all the first atheists were peaceful & loving (which Marx clearly wasn't) & their descendants war-mongerers, then that is equally truein the case of Christianity if not more true, & that's a fact.
It's quite pitiful really that this is the best Oxford could offer.
"Why I Am Not a Christian..." - By: Andreas P. Rauch, 13 May 2007 ... & neither a follower of whatsoever other faiths else.
This book is about a strange thing, a non-belief that has got its own name. We do not have words for people who do not believein unicorns, or notin astrology, but people who do not believein gods are called atheists. Only the disbeliefin gods seems important that westerners coined a special term for it.
Though persecution of nonbelievers has gone out of fashionin most parts of the civilized world, prejudices about atheism & atheists are still abundant - even among the more liberal believers.
Philosopher Julian Baggini explainsin plain & clear terms what atheism is, & what it is not, how individual atheists' positions differ, & which reasons atheists give for their nonbeliefs. He discusses why atheism isn't a faithin itself (though a few atheists are strong believersin something else), if being religious is necessary for moral behaviour, & other basic concepts & misconceptions.
Baggini does not try to convert anyone, but presents a very balanced perspective on atheism. Religions are mainly discussed as sets of beliefs, not as social or psychological phenomena. Understanding why people believe would probably shed some crucial light on why others don't.
To be fair, the question why people believe is an open & delicate one, & it is clearly one beyond the book's scope & intentions. Those interestedin such questions, believers & non-believers alike, should probably consult P. Boyer's "Religion Explained" or D. C. Dennett's "Breaking the Spell". - The same is true for those who'd like a more thorough & rigid discussion of the philosophical arguments; B. Russell's writings might provide accessible starting points, as do many of the books from Baggini's "further reading" list.
I would recommend Baggini's well-written book to anyone who wants to get a general picture of atheism, or to any atheist who liked to explain or even justify his "unfaith" to others. Those looking for a critique of religion(s), or an explanation why people believein them, or sociological facts on atheists & theists, should look someplace else.
This very short introduction does exactly what one could expect - nothing more, but also nothing less, &in a very readable & clear way.
Short - and sharp - By: M. Clegg, 04 Feb 2007 
In "Atheism: A Very Short Introduction" Julian Baggini has done his job with impressive efficiency. There is neat & clear coverage of the critical topics: morality & purpose with & without God, the nature of knowledge, & the relationship of atheism & science, amongst others. More technical philosophical concepts (defeasibility, consequentialism) aren't avoided but are broughtin with a minimum of fuss & crisp explanation.
While the book is principally aiming to describe & explain some venerable arguments, Baggini also introduces his own perspective. There is a heartening emphasis throughout on the positive nature of atheism; on living a reflective life based on best evidence, rationality, & an ethics rootedin human realities. Some excellent material argues why agnosticism is unsatisfactory. This centres on the notion of abduction, or "argument to the best explanation": there are no knock-down reasons for or against beliefin God; the case against is not absolute, but it is absolutely overwhelming for anyone whose standards are evidence & rational argument.
This lack of an absolute case against the existence of God leads Baggini to reject what he terms militant atheism - that is an active hostility to even moderate religion. He thinks religion is false & has the potential, at least, for harm, but takes the principled stance thatin the absence of absolute evidence, an aggressive assertion of the truth of atheism is dogmatic, & contrary to the spirit of open enquiry. This is impressive, right & can make some of his text a bit timid. However, it is a well-made definition of a recognisable position, especially as it is contrasted with "fundamentalist atheism", the latter being restricted to violence against the religious. This is a useful separation given the increasingly frequent rhetorical move to call any atheism asserting its better claim to truth "fundamentalist".
