What do you think?
Rate this book
The Necessity Of Atheism
Plain speaking is necessary in any discussion of religion, for if the freethinker attacks the religious dogmas with hesitation, the orthodox believer assumes that it is with regret that the freethinker would remove the crutch that supports the orthodox. And all religious beliefs are "crutches" hindering the free locomotive efforts of an advancing humanity. There are no problems related to human progress and happiness in this age which any theology can solve, and which the teachings of freethought cannot do better and without the aid of encumbrances.
212 pages, Paperback
Published October 23, 2007
23 people are currently reading
137 people want to read
About the author
David Marshall Brooks
5 books4 followersDr. David Marshall Brooks (1902–1994) Psychologist
Sometimes published as Dr. DM Brooks.
Sometimes published as Dr. DM Brooks.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
December 21, 2025
An emotive and impassioned tract against religion, or - despite a cursory, pinch-lipped glance at Judaism and Islam, and a typical, atheistic wistfulness for that brand of ancient Roman paganism that has little pretension of being taken seriously these days - those most diabolical followers of Christ.
This is a fun but incredibly shallow book. I don't doubt Brooks' sincerity here: he really does have an axe to grind against his "stifling" Christian society. And I am not the type of believer who is going to read this book with crossed arms and insist he made no valid points about the hypocrisy and sometimes outright evilness of certain Christians.
However, the book grants no inch whatsoever to the other side. Brooks presents the Christian Church as a meddling, moustache-twirling villain that somehow just keeps getting away with it. Like the ever lovable but consistently traitorous Dr Smith in the classic Lost in Space TV show, you'd think sooner or later somebody would just up and say, "Enough is enough. Let's just kill this backstabbing little fucker and be done with the hijinks".
With an excessive list of quotes from his favourite few philosophers (never mind the ones he doesn't agree with), Mr Brooks (or "Brookie" to his pals down at the Bitter Atheist) proceeds to make some quite hilariously erroneous connections in order to mark Christianity with just about every evil in the history of human civilization. Furthermore, his naive optimism about being at the gateway of destroying faith and entering a scientific, technological utopia of happy non-believers - only shortly before WWII, the Holocaust, the atom bomb and the rise of certain communist states - has aged astoundingly well.
This is a perfect book for angry, lazy atheists who need Christianity (and maybe their overbearing fathers) to be wrong, rather than those who truly believe it is with firm and solid reason.
This is a fun but incredibly shallow book. I don't doubt Brooks' sincerity here: he really does have an axe to grind against his "stifling" Christian society. And I am not the type of believer who is going to read this book with crossed arms and insist he made no valid points about the hypocrisy and sometimes outright evilness of certain Christians.
However, the book grants no inch whatsoever to the other side. Brooks presents the Christian Church as a meddling, moustache-twirling villain that somehow just keeps getting away with it. Like the ever lovable but consistently traitorous Dr Smith in the classic Lost in Space TV show, you'd think sooner or later somebody would just up and say, "Enough is enough. Let's just kill this backstabbing little fucker and be done with the hijinks".
With an excessive list of quotes from his favourite few philosophers (never mind the ones he doesn't agree with), Mr Brooks (or "Brookie" to his pals down at the Bitter Atheist) proceeds to make some quite hilariously erroneous connections in order to mark Christianity with just about every evil in the history of human civilization. Furthermore, his naive optimism about being at the gateway of destroying faith and entering a scientific, technological utopia of happy non-believers - only shortly before WWII, the Holocaust, the atom bomb and the rise of certain communist states - has aged astoundingly well.
This is a perfect book for angry, lazy atheists who need Christianity (and maybe their overbearing fathers) to be wrong, rather than those who truly believe it is with firm and solid reason.
October 31, 2013
The Necessity of Atheism presents an overview of religious scepticism in the 1930s, and a look at on-going debate and like scepticism even today. Despite obvious conflict of its central topic coupled with the thorough deconstruction of all major religious figures and practices through time, I see this work as mainly offering a range of viewpoints on religious beliefs, systems and practices and not necessarily seeking to dissuade the reader from religious thought in anyway…
I think this work is only for the open-minded or the free-thinker and even an opportunity for thought by those only previously exposed to religion, but it should not be employed as a tool for conflict...
This work is available online from’ Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20248/...
I think this work is only for the open-minded or the free-thinker and even an opportunity for thought by those only previously exposed to religion, but it should not be employed as a tool for conflict...
This work is available online from’ Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20248/...
October 22, 2020
A tedious and quite banal attack on religions, seemingly not powerful enough to shake believers from their faiths, nor novel enough to interest nonbelievers from their busy lives.
January 5, 2019
This book is on the dated side of things. It employs the same arguments that are well known already for anyone familiar with atheism, not that they are wrong or ineffective (they are not). Another general thing to be said is that the word “necessity” in the title is somewhat of a misnomer. I think it is the need for secular humanism, whether skeptic, agnostic, atheist, and possibly liberal religionists, that David Marshall Brooks is arguing for in his book.
After covering the evolution of religious beliefs he looks at Islam. Then, as many today, he claims religious beliefs is a mental disease. After criticizing the basis of belief he shows how religion affects science in a series of chapters. Then comes the chapters focusing on morals, which eventually winds up showing how atheism, or more properly, secular humanism, is a better way to solve social issues.
The following are some comments I made on specific pieces of text. Kindle locations are given in brackets [].
[54] “Free thought has dethroned the gods from the pedestal, and has replaced, not an empty idol, but an ideal, the ideal of a man who is his own god.” (authors italics) I claim no godhood and neither should anybody else; it smacks of intolerance. The ideal is that there shall be no gods period.
[146] “The howling of the wind, the flashes of lightning, and crashing of thunder give rise to that elemental emotion—fear.” I agree that it is fear that drives human beings to their beliefs in god(s), and not as an attempt to explain the world. As with primitive human beings also with modern ones with their fear of hell. Further on [206] Brooks makes the link more directly: “The savage made sacrifices to his idols, that is, he paid tribute, chiefly out of fear . . .”
[392] “Scientists incline to the view that the earth has existed as a separate planet for something like two thousand million years (2,000,000,000). The rocks give a history of 16,000,000,000.” What gives here? Why the discrepancy? They should agree.
[1344] “He [Professor Jeans] believes that there may exist “a great architect of the universe who is a pure mathematician.” There is no “may” about it. Such a being does not exist anymore than some kind of god. Plus, even if there where such a mathematician he or she would have to be an applied mathematician. G. H. Hardy need not apply.*
[2554] I present this out of context: “It is just as if one were to maintain that the sole reason for baking bread is to prevent people from stealing cake.” :-)
[2815] “Slavery was unknown to the Africans until it was introduced by the Christian Portuguese.” This is highly doubtful. In all likelihood slavery was per-existent to this encounter.
[3104] He gives this misogynist quote from Saint Augustine: “How much better two men and converse together than a man and a woman.” There seems to be more than a hint of homosexuality here. It also makes me wonder if Augustine was a pedophile.
[3675] “Is anything more pitiful to behold as the firm grasp that the Church places on the mind of the youngest children? Children at play, children of four and five years of age, will be heard to mention with fearful tones religious rites, such as baptism and confirmation, and to perform in their manner these rites with their dolls. Fear! Fear! Instilled into the minds of impressionable children!” It would appear that the Church knows all about religious belief coming about as a fear response.
[3908] “The Christian will analyze the creed of the Mohammedan and find it ridiculous; the Mohammedan analyzes the creed of the Christian and in turn finds it ridiculous. That is thinking. But does the Mohammedan or the Christian analyze as critically each his own belief?” This reminds me of John Loftus’ book The Outsider Test for Faith, where he ask his readers to critically examine their faith as if it were someone’s else religion.
[3961] “The age is approaching when the god idea in its entirety will be classed with the gods of the Egyptians and Babylonians, when surplices and sacramental plate will be exhibited in museums . . .” He does not give a time frame for this prediction. If he was talking in decades, he has been way off, and if he means centuries, we will just have to wait and see (and hope).
[4070] “When Copernicus proved that the earth revolved around the sun, he did not simply prove that the earth revolved around the sun, he also proved that the so-called revelation of God, as contained in the Old Testament, was rubbish.” (my italics) I italicized “proved” because Copernicus did not actually prove the heliocentric model. This was left for Galileo to do by observing the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus. It was not even original. The Greek, Aristarchus of Samos, posited this back in ancient times. What Copernicus did do was to show that the heliocentric model was more accurate than Ptolemy’s geocentric model. But, only slightly so. Anyway, his model was reasonable, but did not amount to a proof.
Unfortunately, while the book is readable, the historical and scientific information is dated. An example of the scientific is the dating of the earth, which I guess had not reach the established dating of 4.5 billion years. And, the arguments are all very well traveled. Despite these criticisms I did like the book to a degree.
If you do not mind the datedness of the book, I suppose one might enjoy it. I would suggest the writings of Robert Ingersoll. He is a much better or colorful writer than Brooks.
* Hardy claim that he was a pure mathematician, and his work in number theory had no use in the real world.Review to follow
After covering the evolution of religious beliefs he looks at Islam. Then, as many today, he claims religious beliefs is a mental disease. After criticizing the basis of belief he shows how religion affects science in a series of chapters. Then comes the chapters focusing on morals, which eventually winds up showing how atheism, or more properly, secular humanism, is a better way to solve social issues.
The following are some comments I made on specific pieces of text. Kindle locations are given in brackets [].
[54] “Free thought has dethroned the gods from the pedestal, and has replaced, not an empty idol, but an ideal, the ideal of a man who is his own god.” (authors italics) I claim no godhood and neither should anybody else; it smacks of intolerance. The ideal is that there shall be no gods period.
[146] “The howling of the wind, the flashes of lightning, and crashing of thunder give rise to that elemental emotion—fear.” I agree that it is fear that drives human beings to their beliefs in god(s), and not as an attempt to explain the world. As with primitive human beings also with modern ones with their fear of hell. Further on [206] Brooks makes the link more directly: “The savage made sacrifices to his idols, that is, he paid tribute, chiefly out of fear . . .”
[392] “Scientists incline to the view that the earth has existed as a separate planet for something like two thousand million years (2,000,000,000). The rocks give a history of 16,000,000,000.” What gives here? Why the discrepancy? They should agree.
[1344] “He [Professor Jeans] believes that there may exist “a great architect of the universe who is a pure mathematician.” There is no “may” about it. Such a being does not exist anymore than some kind of god. Plus, even if there where such a mathematician he or she would have to be an applied mathematician. G. H. Hardy need not apply.*
[2554] I present this out of context: “It is just as if one were to maintain that the sole reason for baking bread is to prevent people from stealing cake.” :-)
[2815] “Slavery was unknown to the Africans until it was introduced by the Christian Portuguese.” This is highly doubtful. In all likelihood slavery was per-existent to this encounter.
[3104] He gives this misogynist quote from Saint Augustine: “How much better two men and converse together than a man and a woman.” There seems to be more than a hint of homosexuality here. It also makes me wonder if Augustine was a pedophile.
[3675] “Is anything more pitiful to behold as the firm grasp that the Church places on the mind of the youngest children? Children at play, children of four and five years of age, will be heard to mention with fearful tones religious rites, such as baptism and confirmation, and to perform in their manner these rites with their dolls. Fear! Fear! Instilled into the minds of impressionable children!” It would appear that the Church knows all about religious belief coming about as a fear response.
[3908] “The Christian will analyze the creed of the Mohammedan and find it ridiculous; the Mohammedan analyzes the creed of the Christian and in turn finds it ridiculous. That is thinking. But does the Mohammedan or the Christian analyze as critically each his own belief?” This reminds me of John Loftus’ book The Outsider Test for Faith, where he ask his readers to critically examine their faith as if it were someone’s else religion.
[3961] “The age is approaching when the god idea in its entirety will be classed with the gods of the Egyptians and Babylonians, when surplices and sacramental plate will be exhibited in museums . . .” He does not give a time frame for this prediction. If he was talking in decades, he has been way off, and if he means centuries, we will just have to wait and see (and hope).
[4070] “When Copernicus proved that the earth revolved around the sun, he did not simply prove that the earth revolved around the sun, he also proved that the so-called revelation of God, as contained in the Old Testament, was rubbish.” (my italics) I italicized “proved” because Copernicus did not actually prove the heliocentric model. This was left for Galileo to do by observing the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus. It was not even original. The Greek, Aristarchus of Samos, posited this back in ancient times. What Copernicus did do was to show that the heliocentric model was more accurate than Ptolemy’s geocentric model. But, only slightly so. Anyway, his model was reasonable, but did not amount to a proof.
Unfortunately, while the book is readable, the historical and scientific information is dated. An example of the scientific is the dating of the earth, which I guess had not reach the established dating of 4.5 billion years. And, the arguments are all very well traveled. Despite these criticisms I did like the book to a degree.
If you do not mind the datedness of the book, I suppose one might enjoy it. I would suggest the writings of Robert Ingersoll. He is a much better or colorful writer than Brooks.
* Hardy claim that he was a pure mathematician, and his work in number theory had no use in the real world.Review to follow
May 2, 2016
For anyone who feels uncomfortable about critically assessing his or her faith, this is a dangerous book to read. It has all the force and impact of a really modern rationalist approach to theism, citing extensive examples of where religion has not advanced, but significantly hindered, human civilisation and progress. The surprising thing for me was discovering that it was written in the 1930's, the era of my grandparents. To think that it took me this long to learn some of the startling historical facts contained herein!
Admittedly, the debate around religion has moved on since then, and some would say that elements of this classic have been shown to be overstated. Even so, I regard it as a valuable introduction into the controversies surrounding the role of religion in today's society. While many contemporary churches have let go of past iniquities, such as the persecution of scientists and evolutionists, the fact remains that many or most still elevate faith above reason, and this leads to the enslavement of the mind to outdated concepts.
If nothing else, the book offers a convincing argument for secular education in schools. Children need to be taught to think for themselves, not to believe without question under threat of hell and damnation. All scientific, cultural and economic progress has come about through a willingness, borne out of a sense of freedom, to seek new and innovative ways of doing things. If freedom is not assured because people fear displeasing God, creativity is inevitably curtailed. Hence the continuation of suffering.
Admittedly, the debate around religion has moved on since then, and some would say that elements of this classic have been shown to be overstated. Even so, I regard it as a valuable introduction into the controversies surrounding the role of religion in today's society. While many contemporary churches have let go of past iniquities, such as the persecution of scientists and evolutionists, the fact remains that many or most still elevate faith above reason, and this leads to the enslavement of the mind to outdated concepts.
If nothing else, the book offers a convincing argument for secular education in schools. Children need to be taught to think for themselves, not to believe without question under threat of hell and damnation. All scientific, cultural and economic progress has come about through a willingness, borne out of a sense of freedom, to seek new and innovative ways of doing things. If freedom is not assured because people fear displeasing God, creativity is inevitably curtailed. Hence the continuation of suffering.
Want to read
April 26, 2015feedbooks
April 14, 2025
Some critiques are effective but some are also jarringly dishonest.
July 27, 2018
Other than that he was an American psychologist and freethinker (1902-1994) I couldn‘t find out anything about the author of this work which was published in 1933, a time when there obviously wasn’t as much concern about political correctness and moral relativity as there is today.
Mr. Brooks definitely doesn’t mince his words in his attack on religion and advocacy of science & reason
(“Supernaturalism versus Secularism”) and what he lacks in elegance he makes up in vehemence and passion.
While he writes extensively about Christianity and to a much lesser extent about Judaism, he only relatively briefly touches on Islam but had this book appeared today he would have had a fatwa hanging over his head in the blink of an eye.
He ranges far and wide through time and place and gives us a wealth of information, evidence, details, statements, quotes and anecdotes and seems to be well informed though I have no idea how well-reputed some of his lesser-known (to me) sources are. And while I whole-heartedly agree with his message, I wish it could have been heavily edited as the author tends to repeat himself endlessly and the chapter on the personalities of the three prophets, Mohammed, Jesus and Moses is downright weird.
Unfortunately, I fear Mr. Brooks was vastly over-optimistic in his forecast that “religion was doomed in this modern day by its absolute irrelevance to the needs and interests of modern life” and that "religions of all varieties are rapidly sinking into the limbo of all other ancient superstitions.”
Mr. Brooks definitely doesn’t mince his words in his attack on religion and advocacy of science & reason
(“Supernaturalism versus Secularism”) and what he lacks in elegance he makes up in vehemence and passion.
While he writes extensively about Christianity and to a much lesser extent about Judaism, he only relatively briefly touches on Islam but had this book appeared today he would have had a fatwa hanging over his head in the blink of an eye.
He ranges far and wide through time and place and gives us a wealth of information, evidence, details, statements, quotes and anecdotes and seems to be well informed though I have no idea how well-reputed some of his lesser-known (to me) sources are. And while I whole-heartedly agree with his message, I wish it could have been heavily edited as the author tends to repeat himself endlessly and the chapter on the personalities of the three prophets, Mohammed, Jesus and Moses is downright weird.
Unfortunately, I fear Mr. Brooks was vastly over-optimistic in his forecast that “religion was doomed in this modern day by its absolute irrelevance to the needs and interests of modern life” and that "religions of all varieties are rapidly sinking into the limbo of all other ancient superstitions.”
January 31, 2022
Μια ενδιαφέρουσα και αρκετά εμπεριστατωμένη "πολεμική" της θρησκείας, γραμμένη το 1933, πριν τον Β παγκόσμιο και τον Ψυχρό Πόλεμο, τότε που �� ανθρωπότητα ακόμα κοιτούσε με ελπίδα το παράδειγμα της Ρωσίας, ως μιας νέας, διαφορετικής, αθρησκης και ανθρωποκεντρικής φαινομενικά κοινωνίας.
Στα θετικά του κειμένου θα βάλω τη δομή, η οποία είναι εξαιρετικά οργανωμένη σε κεφάλαια που το καθένα πραγματεύεται τις επιπτώσεις της θρησκείας διαχρονικά σε κάθε πτυχή της ανθρώπινης ζωής, αλλά και τα λογικά χάσματα που είναι εγγενή στα θρησκευτικά δόγματα. Ο λόγος είναι θετικός, εμπεριστατωμένος, στηριγμένος σε επιχειρήματα. Βασικός σκοπός, η γέννηση αμφιβολιών όσον αφορά τη θεία προέλευση των δογμάτων και την αξιοτητα των εκπροσώπων των Εκκλησιών.
Στα αρνητικά θα ανέφερα το ότι ο συγγραφέας περισσότερο στηλιτεύει τα Χριστιανικά δόγματα, με πολύ μικρότερης έκτασης αναφορές σε άλλα, πχ. Ιουδαϊσμός, Μωαμεθανισμός, Ινδουισμός ή Βουδισμός. Λογικό, από την άποψη ότι αυτά του είναι περισσότερο οικεία και η έκταση ενός συγγράμματος είναι πεπερασμένη, αλλά άδικο, κατά μια έννοια.
Με έκανε να χαμογελάσω η αναφορά του στη Ρωσία, ως παραδείγματος προς μίμηση, αλλά και η βεβαιότητα ότι ξεκινά μια νέα εποχή, που ο άνθρωπος εκλογικευεται, εμπιστευεται την επιστήμη και γίνεται ουσιαστικά ηθικός, απεμπολιζοντας τις θρησκείες και τις δεισιδαιμονίες από τη ζωή του.
Και λίγα χρόνια μετά... Η γενοκτονία των Εβραίων με το ολοκαύτωμα, η χρήση της επιστήμης για όπλα μαζικής καταστροφής, ο φόβος που έσπρωξε τον κόσμο στη θρησκεία ακόμα περισσότερο.
Στα θετικά του κειμένου θα βάλω τη δομή, η οποία είναι εξαιρετικά οργανωμένη σε κεφάλαια που το καθένα πραγματεύεται τις επιπτώσεις της θρησκείας διαχρονικά σε κάθε πτυχή της ανθρώπινης ζωής, αλλά και τα λογικά χάσματα που είναι εγγενή στα θρησκευτικά δόγματα. Ο λόγος είναι θετικός, εμπεριστατωμένος, στηριγμένος σε επιχειρήματα. Βασικός σκοπός, η γέννηση αμφιβολιών όσον αφορά τη θεία προέλευση των δογμάτων και την αξιοτητα των εκπροσώπων των Εκκλησιών.
Στα αρνητικά θα ανέφερα το ότι ο συγγραφέας περισσότερο στηλιτεύει τα Χριστιανικά δόγματα, με πολύ μικρότερης έκτασης αναφορές σε άλλα, πχ. Ιουδαϊσμός, Μωαμεθανισμός, Ινδουισμός ή Βουδισμός. Λογικό, από την άποψη ότι αυτά του είναι περισσότερο οικεία και η έκταση ενός συγγράμματος είναι πεπερασμένη, αλλά άδικο, κατά μια έννοια.
Με έκανε να χαμογελάσω η αναφορά του στη Ρωσία, ως παραδείγματος προς μίμηση, αλλά και η βεβαιότητα ότι ξεκινά μια νέα εποχή, που ο άνθρωπος εκλογικευεται, εμπιστευεται την επιστήμη και γίνεται ουσιαστικά ηθικός, απεμπολιζοντας τις θρησκείες και τις δεισιδαιμονίες από τη ζωή του.
Και λίγα χρόνια μετά... Η γενοκτονία των Εβραίων με το ολοκαύτωμα, η χρήση της επιστήμης για όπλα μαζικής καταστροφής, ο φόβος που έσπρωξε τον κόσμο στη θρησκεία ακόμα περισσότερο.
January 19, 2023
Although written in the early 1930s I found the arguments advanced still relevant if the examples are somewhat dated. This book is definitely intended for those who already are agnostic, atheist, or strongly inclined toward disbelief in the supernatural. If you're looking for a balanced debate on theism vs. atheism this is not it. This book is squarely in the "religion sucks" camp. Being an atheist I found the book entertaining and it made some good points. Believers will find it offensive.
The downside for me is the author assumed all atheists would share certain other political or ethical beliefs which overlooks the diversity of human thought. He also assumed that because morality is independent of religion, and religion has perpetrated/excused terrible behavior, that all atheists would be much more moral people. And he encouraged the reader to watch the Soviet Union for how an atheist society would work out. Granted he couldn't have known what Stalin was up to, but that guy is definitely not a poster child for morals. He basically reversed the argument that religious people are moral which is just lazy thinking.
Overall worth reading.
The downside for me is the author assumed all atheists would share certain other political or ethical beliefs which overlooks the diversity of human thought. He also assumed that because morality is independent of religion, and religion has perpetrated/excused terrible behavior, that all atheists would be much more moral people. And he encouraged the reader to watch the Soviet Union for how an atheist society would work out. Granted he couldn't have known what Stalin was up to, but that guy is definitely not a poster child for morals. He basically reversed the argument that religious people are moral which is just lazy thinking.
Overall worth reading.
July 4, 2019
I actually listened to an audio of this book on Librivox. It might have been a little dry to get through actually reading it, but the narrator made this quite interesting. Enlightening book that compares the supernatural with the secular. The author describes the effect organized religion has had on so many topics- science, medicine, astronomy, war, slavery, and many more. Not for the true believers, but if you can't quite come to terms with some of the religious 'dogma' you may find this book interesting. I particularly enjoyed a lot of the quotes from the ancient great philosophers. One quote from the book that I liked: 'Morality should be based on sociology, not theology'.
August 23, 2021
Compulsively readable and quite informative, this text is quite strange in the way that it treats Jesus—due to an off-comment in some book, the author has taken it upon himself to write that Jesus of Nazareth most probably had a physical defect and was trying to compensate; thus his behavior—and of the way it call Islam as Mohammedism.
1930s, I suppose, was quite a strange decade.*
*Don't get me wrong, though: this book really was helpful.
1930s, I suppose, was quite a strange decade.*
*Don't get me wrong, though: this book really was helpful.
April 20, 2022
Dated but still wildly instructive.
This very well written book presents a compelling narrative of the horrifying effects of religious leaders in preaching the good news of an all powerful God and how to gain favor of said deity for personal gain and survive death. My eyes were forcefully opened.
This very well written book presents a compelling narrative of the horrifying effects of religious leaders in preaching the good news of an all powerful God and how to gain favor of said deity for personal gain and survive death. My eyes were forcefully opened.
April 27, 2013
Jesus was not the first savior and wont be the last. Religion is ancient, passed down from family to family through memes and stories, no two generations exactly alike. Perhaps atheism is a necessity, will it ever be a majority?
An interesting short read found on Kindle.
An interesting short read found on Kindle.
January 21, 2023
Quran of atheism. The arguments presented were rather dogmatic but well illustrated with myriad examples from various periods of history. The key takeaway for me was that atheism is an indication of mental maturity.
January 5, 2011
The few pages I have read already I find quite thought provoking.
May 17, 2012
Absolutely wonderful book. Really enjoyed reading it. Would recommend to anyone.
November 19, 2013
Great read
September 6, 2017
A LibriVox recording, read by Wesseling.
May 26, 2018
Great breakdown into where religion goes/went wrong. If anything the conclusion of focussing on helping each other made by the book should be the center of religion.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews