Maybe you stumbled on a description of Epicurus' philosophy and were attracted to it, like I was. A review in Skeptic magazine included a quote:

"God should not concern us.
Death is not to be feared.
What is good is easy to obtain.
What is bad is easily avoided."

A nice perspective to have, as the modern world becomes more and more hedonistic, and God seems more and more out of the picture.

I read Warren's book a couple months ago, so please forgive my fuzziness. The first section is very engaging--a wonderful philosopher's breakdown of the conflicts and claims Epicureanism. In particular, it enumerates the many fears one can have regarding death. My purpose, as yours may be, in reading this book was to see how Epicurus claims to deal with these. This first section promised an investigation into these fears (and true enough, the book delivered).

The second section is on the symmetry argument (not existing before birth doesn't bother us, neither should absence after death). This is an interesting argument, but is not convincing (he agrees, and reserves some criticisms for later). However, it is definitely much too long--I almost wish I'd skipped it.

The rest of the book analyzes some other objections to Epicurianism, from the fear of mortality to the unsustainability of their perfect life (nutshell: at every moment you are satisfied with having lived your life. How can you justify preserving it?).

In fact my only objection to his arguments is in the Epicurean Will section (why write a will if you have no care what happens after your death?). It seems obvious to me that you might write a will to appease and comfort those around you (your grandson might be less nice to you in life if you didn't promise to give him your house when you died; thus you'd be more unhappy.)

In the later parts of the book, he digs deeper into the primary texts of the early practicers, trying to get a handle on what Epicurus taught. I was a little disappointed (slightly uplifted later, at the conclusion) that less time was spent analyzing the viability of these teachings--at this point it became too historical for my taste.

The book is obsessively footnoted, so many of the issues he raises (not only with historical interpretations, but also in viability) can be further explored in literature (some online, some not). Many point to dry topics, but undoubtedly some address my objections.

To tell the truth, in the end I was uninterested in a lot of the conclusions. I'd realized that at least one of my particular major objections were not going to be addressed. Still, I think that alot of the issues, examples, and counterpoints he makes are very illuminating. I have benefitted from reading this book, and as soon as I can get around to it, plan to look up some more argumentative modern defenses of Epicurianism.