How to Be a Good Atheist

by Nick Harding

For millennia priests and holy men have told countless conflicting tales about humanity's genesis and fate, while also saying anyone devoid of faith is evil, immoral, and responsible for societal ills. For those tired of these contradictions, fed up with hearing about divine mysteries when there aren't any, and offended by being told they're going to hell, atheism is a popular and logical answer. This book contains all you need to know about what to pack for your journey on the enlightening road to atheism, including explanations of the five types of atheism and the difference between an atheist and an agnostic—a term invented by T. H. Huxley, famous for his defense of Darwin—as well as how a deist differs from a theist. Learn why Christians were originally called atheists; read about Lucretius and his fellow materialists; and revel alongside atheists who happily have nothing to defend.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Nonfiction, Atheism

160 pages, Hardcover

First published April 28, 2007

Reviews

[Magda w RPA · Rating 3 out of 5]

The target audience is unclear. There are many things I disagree with here and some thoughts I think are interesting, but then I’m definitely the kind of atheist Nick Harding would look down upon. I’ve enjoyed learning more about the history of atheism. There are also many titles the book mentions so it’s cool as a “further reading” resource.

In principle, this book lines up very nicely with all the literature written by angry atheists, who think they’re intellectually superior because they don’t believe in god. It’s as sad to base your sense of worth on disbelief as it is to do so based on religious affiliation. I also find their anger curious, particularly when they’re British. Like what are you angry about? That there wasn’t a sequel to “Life of Brian”? The UK is pretty damn secular.

Now, I come from Poland so I was understandably anti-religious before I became an atheist. I didn’t arrive at my atheism by the use of the scientific method, I don’t think. It was more like a realisation that as convenient as the idea of god is, convenience doesn’t make things true. In a way, it’s more dumb to be an atheist because there’s plenty of research showing that believers are more content with their lives. Still, I think that organised religion is evil and support full separation of religion and state.

[Todd · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a nice little sourcebook on Atheism.

[Victor Manuel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very rational, and well written book on atheistic thought.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Terrible title for a good book

[Jeffrey Bradt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book says little about how to be a good atheist. It mostly argues against theism, opposing the deceit that one needs to believe in a god to have good morals.

[Leticia V · Rating 3 out of 5]

As many other readers have stated,this isn't a bad book but there's nothing new about it. It simply reiterates what others have said. I wouldn't really suggest this particular book to anyone who was curious about us atheists,but it's not really bad

[Peter Fabre · Rating 2 out of 5]

The tone! Oh, the dreadful tone.

The book itself was disappointing and i found the title misleading. I expected discussions of morality but really, there was none. This appears more like a reference book. A starter with great quotes and directions for further reading. This was not clear from the title.

The book itself is not written as well as those he quotes (not too surprisingly). This would not be too worrisome except for the shear amount of quotes which makes the writer seem i adequate. This is besides his arrogant tone while preaching (i know) humility.

His overall tone is harmful and seems to delight in his use of unnecessary descriptions. Instead of writing 'belief', he is more likely to write 'silly belief' instead. All it achieves is show a bias without adding information.
It reminds me of a personal rule i have, refrain from the use of 'obviously'. It adds no information but causes the user to sound as though his knowledge should be common.

I was very disappointed and would feel slightly embarrassed if atheism, anthropomorphised (he would appreciate), spoke with his voice.

[Shawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found the historical perspective fascinating. If he doesn't outright hate people of whatever faith I didn't get that from his writing. I don't know that he can tolerate living in a world with people who want to personally believe in fairy tales. I wonder if his utopia would see those types "reformed" until they conform. Not that his arguments are wrong but this book is for atheists not a bridge for non-atheists to get them to see reason as a valid way to view one's world. I could have done without his cheap pot shots at theists expense as I'm already on his side. Even if they did push him over the edge. Still there was a great deal of valuable information I could take away from the read and further my education. I would recommend this book to anyone who is angry at theists and wants to feel momentarily superior to them.

[Blair Hodgkinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is less of what the title implies, a guide to a life as a good atheist, and is more of a review of the arguments favouring atheism over theism. As such, it is a fairly thorough if brief overview. Whether one can consider it a fault or not depends on one's particular standpoint on the matter, but theists interested in a casual insight or two about atheism might find the author's declared certainty about the rightness of atheism and his dismissal of all religion at every level a bit intolerant and therefore might prefer a book like the The Idiot's Guide to Atheism, which is much more live and let live.

[Judy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Harding gives a really good but concise history of the atheists throughout history. He describes five types of atheism, the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, and the difference between deists and theists. I don't feel that the title does the book justice; it sounds a bit flippant, whereas this is a scholarly and serious work. He does a good job of giving an overview of atheism, defining terms and dispelling myths. Overall, he feels, as I do, that atheists have nothing to apologize for.

[Richard Watkins · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book starts off as a collection of "must read"s for the reader. Gradually the author starts sneaking in his own political views. But it does get better with the chapter on the history of rational thought. The rest is filled with fairly common arguments against religion...all noteworthy, but nothing I haven't head before. Nice collection of quotes, though.

[Christopher Carbone · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ultimately unsatisfying overview of atheism and the failure of religion. Basically, it restates many of the points that other authors have said before (Dawkins, Harris, Shermer, Dennett, Hitchens, etc). The book is not bad, but it’s nothing new. Basically, read this book if you want a fast and dirty explanation of why atheism works, but avoid if you have read the other authors I mentioned.

[Alexis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read..
Couldn't help but agree with most of the arguments that was written..

[Ronald · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy." Albert Einstein

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

I suppose it is silly that books like this are still necessary, a few tirades against pet hates suggested themselves to me but all in all good stuff

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

This gave some interesting information about the history of atheism and free thought in Europe. A lot of it I already knew. He pulled no punches in criticizing Christianity and other religions.