470 of 518 people found the following review helpful
Clever, Very Readable and Pretty Convincing Too,
This review is from: God is Not Great: The Case Against Religion (Hardcover)
Firstly - I've read the US version of this book, "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything", this is why I can write a review.
If you just want to comment on Hitchens/Atheism in general (either for or against) then please do it somewhere else!
I wasn't the greatest Hitchens fan but I have to admit that this book is something special. It's well written with lots of entertaining anecdotes and is easily more readable than Dawkins "The God Delusion". The pages fly by and his points are interesting and well made.
Obviously I was expecting a rabid attack on all things godly yet Hitchens turns out to be cleverer than that. He insists that people should be free to believe what they want - they just shouldn't try to force their beliefs on others. There's the expected examination of the Abrahamic religions here (yes, including Islam) but also critiques of other faiths too. Intelligent and inventive, this was far far better than the book that I was expecting.
Overall it's a great read with a convincing message that has convinced me to look at Hitchens back catalogue to see what other gems are hidden there...
I dare you to read this!
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 14 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 4 Nov 2008 16:59:03 GMT
H. T. Abbot-davies says:
In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jun 2009 23:32:39 BDT
Mr. R. P. J. Campkin says:
You've probably found out already, but no it isn't abridged.
Posted on 14 Dec 2009 16:44:39 GMT
Posted on 25 Dec 2009 11:57:23 GMT
Last edited by the author on 25 Dec 2009 11:59:44 GMT
P. J. Breach says:
Oh do go away Aquinas. Your cross-posting antics are equivalent to a child sticking its fingers in its ears & going "Lalalalala".
Hurry along now - Jesus is waiting for you!
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jan 2010 02:54:25 GMT
AJ ROYLE says:
If you think historical art and charity are solely the result of religion, then you need to actually read this book more than most.
Those talented and supported people would still have created masterpieces, or maybe other more talented people or better creations would have took their place.
It's boring when people keep trying to cling on to nonsensical reasoning and then pitifully attempt to twist it round when people point it out.
Get used to it. There are going to be more and more rational people with balls as big as Mr. Hitchens. It's called progress.
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Feb 2010 17:12:51 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Feb 2010 17:14:12 GMT
C. W. Bradbury says:
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2010 17:05:11 BDT
But Christianity wasn't our original religeous base - Paganism was. Then the Christians came, turned all the Pagan festivals into Christian ones, destroyed all the artifacts, books etc and murdered the exponents of the religeon. They turned the hare symbol of fertility into an Easter Bunny and the symbolic blue egg of the Ostler bird into Easter eggs. Personally, I would love to know what the original religeon on my country was really like in its totality but thanks to Christianity I will never get the chance.
In reply to an earlier post on 28 Mar 2011 20:50:02 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Mar 2011 18:26:30 BDT
"but it is a historical fact that no strong, well established culture has long survived the destruction of it's original religious base."
But there are perfectly reasonable evolutionary explanations on why religion has developed, and religion, after all, is merely culture. You can still have the remnant of the culture after the superstitious nonsense has been stripped out. We are "cultural Christians", atheists or otherwise. I am an atheist but I remain a "cultural" Christian because I want to retain the norms and traditions of my country. I can't bring myself, however, to lapse into dreamland and convince myself that I being watched by The Great Surveilance Camara In The Sky who is Eternal and magiced up the universe. Just like there are cultural Jews who don't believe a word of their Rabbi's nonsense, but nevertheless retain their way of life. Let's hope there is an increasing number of cultural, but secular, muslims developing as that is a religion whose mindset in centuries behind the rest of us.
Simply pointing at religion being a cornerstone of most historical cultures doesn't make the tenets of religion a self-evident truth, or something that demonstrates itself "inate" within us. Evolution has resulted in many "misfiring" aspects of behaviour and physical function and appearance, religion is but one.
"The USSR attempted to use atheism as it's 'bedrock' ideology, and despite massive economic/social advantages collapsed and fragmented into chaos within a century"
Ergo, you must have religion, ergo religion is inate within us, ergo it is the truth.
This is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy.
Posted on 15 Jul 2011 19:08:25 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 16 Jul 2011 13:53:00 BDT]
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jul 2011 01:06:48 BDT
I think there was a little more to the "fragmentaion" of the USSR than a mere lack or religion!