Written for use as a textbook, Arguing for Atheism is an easy book to digest. It goes straight to the point and examines the traditional arguments for god's existence and proceeds to show why they fail. He also attempts to formulate a version of the argument from evil though I find it a bit questionable (a better formulation can be found in Theodore Drange's Nonbelief and Evil). Another criticism would be his use of complex metaphysical ideas(especially on time and causation). Nevertheless, the book succeeds in making atheism approachable to the general reader.
This book is an excellent introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. It is very well written, clear and conscise. It offers some new and very interesting ideas to old debates, which draw on many key concepts in metaphysics. I would highly recommend this book to any undergraduate student.
Not so much a review of the book itself, which is actually very well written for what it's attempting to do, but of its primary use on the Leeds University Philosophy course. Listing a heavily weighted argument for atheism on a Philosophy of Religion course makes perfect sense and is absolutely fine. However setting such a text as the *main course* reading for such a module is irresponsible, and to my mind not particularly conducive to proper learning. Just for the record im not a theist, so id be writing exactly the same if this book was a heavily slanted argument in favour of God. The point is however, a religious philosophy course should always aim to give the student a fair and balanced *overview* of both the theistic and atheistic positions. Such a course should not be used as a opportunity for lecturer to disseminate his or her personal views on the subject to the point of almost completely drowning out all other voices.
As i said - as a book in its own right this is perfectly acceptable stuff. But not for an introductory module.