Hitchens why god is not great

More About This Book. Pub Date: Sept. Page Count: Publisher: Viking. Show comments. More by Robert Greene. Pub Date: Feb. Page Count: Publisher: Yale Univ. Review Posted Online: Nov. Show all comments.

More by Stephen Batchelor. Please sign up to continue. Almost there! Reader Writer Industry Professional. Send me weekly book recommendations and inside scoop. Keep me logged in.

Sign in using your Kirkus account Sign in Keep me logged in. Need Help? Contact us: or email customercare kirkus. He felt bad about it the morning after, though And an awesome goat. This new-and-improved, loving and caring, monotheistic 'Yahweh' supposedly wasn't governed by human faults and weaknesses, even if he let it slip to Moses we were created in his image.

It may seem ridiculous from a modern POV, but it all seemed sensible to them. And Christians, Jews and Muslims are still in denial about this murderous piece of shit. Insecurity is definitely a part of the divine character, since he constantly needs reassurances that we love him, even after the douchebag kills our cats and grandmothers.

It's always our fault; 'it's not you, God, it's me'. Those tens of thousands of babies that die every day obviously have it coming for their sins. If god's so dead-set against abortion, maybe he should prove it by not killing the children of parents who wanted to start a family. So contrary to whatever his biographers and publicity agents have been telling us for several millennia, god's just as flaky and mercurial as Jupiter and, well Looking back at all the genocidal and sadistic Old Testament tantrums - Sodom and Gomorrah, the Flood, cursing several billion people to pain and death because their great-great-great-great-etc.

Every bit of suffering in the universe was his doing, yet we're still supposed to thank him for shoving this shit sandwich down our collective throat, to grovel and smile and beg for vague nothings via prayer. If you're Unplug it, plug it back in, and pray harder, ferfucksake. Are you certain you've done everything right? There you go, you're too proud of your righteousness. That's not it? For the desperate and the stupid, faith is invulnerable to reason. What would you think of a person who bought an ant farm, then tossed it into the furnace a day later because the ants wouldn't tap-dance when he asked politely?

God's nuttiness is several orders of magnitude more severe. Thank god for not existing. Now that all those answers religion provided are no longer needed - and wrong about absolutely everything - it's only purpose is to whisper bullshit in the ear of the 'troubled soul', and provide reasons for humanity to kill itself over long outdated lies.

We might as well murder each other over slight historical disagreements about Santa Claus. Elves or gnomes? Reindeer or caribou? Scarlet red or cherry red? View all 40 comments. Oct 03, J. Grice rated it it was amazing Shelves: favorites , religion-philosophy. I'm not preachy on religion, and everybody has their own take on spirituality and their own beliefs, which is how it should be. View 2 comments. Nov 20, Joey rated it it was amazing Shelves: religion.

When my friends or the new people I'm acquainted with find out that I am an atheist ,they tend to raise their eyebrows or purse their lips. The same as what happened a long time ago, when my best friend based in Thailand confirmed that I belong now to the members of the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism", she was worried that I would no longer be saved in the event that the Judgment Day came.

She insisted that I believ When my friends or the new people I'm acquainted with find out that I am an atheist ,they tend to raise their eyebrows or purse their lips. She insisted that I believe in him. Inculcated in militant character,I explained my side in flagrant defiance. As a result, we had had heated debates many times; our friendship almost turned to ice in view of our irrepressibly acrimonious opinions. In the end, we still make sure that her religion will never shake the foundation of our friendship.

Christopher Hitchens is one of the major influences on my being an apostate. Actually, I've read his God is not Great once, and I decided to read it for the second time because I wanted to understand its contents more. It was still unintelligible to me since I read its free PDF. That's why I was not even able to write my review of it. Besides, I was not scholarly ready yet to give my thoughts of it; it needs deeper assimilation. Hitchens strongly emphasized that religion kills every thing.

He believed that it causes violence, irrationality, intolerance, alliance to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, investment in ignorance and hostility to free inquiry, scorn for women and coercion toward children and sectarian. To deduce his arguments, he wrote various personal stories, documented historical anecdotes and critical analysis of religious texts. The result? A book that believers must find ridiculous beyond logical explanation, a big threat to their incessantly dominant indoctrination.

After reading it, I felt like I had a rude awakening for Hitchens' views that religion causes violence, religion is full of superstitions, religion in particular is hazardous to health, some religions are just copy-cats, both the old and the new testaments are inconsistent, religion has been the root of corruption, religious dominance can come to an end,religion has been emphasizing the meaning of sin, religion abuses children, and people can live without religion.

In the end, what Hitchens wanted to point out, the way I see it overall, is that there has been a culture of ignorance in that people conform to the facts they find universal. Go figure! I've been an avowed atheist for four years, since I read some books dealing with atheism.

Well, if you are deeply religious cringing at what I'm blabbering about here now, you might opine that I should not read such anti-religion books, for they corrupt my mind. So, comparatively speaking, I would say that my life is better than before. I am now comfortable to live the way I want. I don't need to conform to religious customs I find paradoxical.

I don't need to shape my life according to what the bible dictates to me. Rather, I lead my life based on what I know what is right for the sake of humanity. I might call it the " universal conscience". And don't even dare tell me that conscience is a godly gift. As a matter of fact, I have proven prominent atheists' belief that a person can be good without the misleading guidance of religion.

However, contrary to the militant attitude of Hitchens, I still believe that respect for one's religious views is the best way to gain rapprochement among us ,only if we know our limitations without being affected by our deep-seated devotion and fanaticism. No wonder Hitchens strongly believes that religion kills everything.

I believe that these books are the springboard for breaking all the spells that have been binding you for a long time. Good luck and let me know then about your thoughts of them.

Happy reading! View all 15 comments. Jan 23, Kerissa Ward rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: Everyone with free thought. Shelves: politics , favorites. I knew that he was an atheist, but because of my own spritual searching I was reluctant to read this book when it first came out.

I finally picked up the book because I have been on a non-fiction binge lately and I knew that by reading his book I was guaranteed an intelligent treatise. By the time I finished the book, I was very glad that I had read it. Hitchens doesn't so much attack God as he attacks religion. He begins the book by describing himself as a boy, learning passages from the Bible, and the moment he felt that there must not be a God because of a comment his teacher makes.

The tales of his boyhood experiences with religion and atheism are used for making his one of his thesis -- that organized religion ruins everything. He points out that it seems one goal of organized religion is to make humans relinquish independent and rational thought. One of the great things about the book is that the chapters are clearly and concisely laid out.

In fact, I found the chapter sequence to be quite methodical. As is his usual trait when Hitchens is arguing against something, he builds his arguments gradually and strongly. Right after I bought the book I read online that many people who considered themselves evangelical have bought the book in a sort of know-thy-enemy way.

I wonder if they felt like they any kind of rebuttal, because Hitchens -- through his extensive readings and reportage -- has built a historically sound case against the three organized religions. It is worthy to note, while Hitchens does deride some of the beliefs and practices of the big three, he does not sneer of the entirety of the faiths.

He knows that there are good people in these faiths who only wish to do good. It the people who take their faiths to the extremes and misinterpret the written word that Hitchens takes most issue with. My only critique is that I do not think he addressed the evolution vs creationism as effectively as he could have.

He makes mention of it several times, but does not explore it deeply. Otherwise anyone with any kind of brainpower should read this book. Jun 03, Montzalee Wittmann rated it it was amazing. He covers everything with the same feelings I have but he has a powerful writing style and better vocabulary. He presents a great message!

May 27, Sketchbook rated it it was amazing. Growing up w Protestant clergy all over the family but, most thankfully, loving parents , I never took any of the Blubble seriously, or weekly "devotionals," which one older sister hugged as a way to say to parents, "Hey, LOVE ME! But she had a problem : I made my parents laugh. When Pops intoned, "Man cannot live by bread alone," I retorted, "What about chocolate croissants?

I knew fr the get-go that relig wa Growing up w Protestant clergy all over the family but, most thankfully, loving parents , I never took any of the Blubble seriously, or weekly "devotionals," which one older sister hugged as a way to say to parents, "Hey, LOVE ME! I knew fr the get-go that relig was bosh A genetic quirk? Or wazzit cos all the religios I had to be poohlite to were dowdy frumps or oogly fat boors??

Beauty could only be found in movie zines Hitchens has written a scholarly and brilliant book on how relig "poisons everything. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or gurus actually said or did. And yet -- they still claim to know!

Not to just know, "but to know everything. But if ye are not a stiff-necked people, you will let Hitchens do it. Mar 08, Mario the lone bookwolf rated it it was amazing Shelves: 0-social-criticism , hitchens-christopher.

Significant that no argument of the author can be invalidated with rational arguments. Only with proof of God Please note that I put the original German text at the end of this review. Just if you might be interested. Hitchens provides a hard-to-disagree, non-philosophical polemic against faith. Throughout the history of religion, he paints a picture of contradictions, power struggles, manipulation, warmongering and the possible call for war, genocide, intolerance and oppression and mistreatment Significant that no argument of the author can be invalidated with rational arguments.

Throughout the history of religion, he paints a picture of contradictions, power struggles, manipulation, warmongering and the possible call for war, genocide, intolerance and oppression and mistreatment of women, people of other faiths, non-believers and children. If these topics were still in vogue and a source of frequency among primitive illiterates at the time of the founders of religion, one would have thought that reason and enlightenment would bring about knowledge.

Unfortunately, far from it. Regarding the care, poor feeding and other social activities of religions as something noted. The sense of charitable action and donation is based on selflessness and the willingness to provide help without expectation of a return in the form of indoctrination readiness as thanks for salvation from precarious situations. On the other hand, if they recruit from the human zealots and fundamentalists, who are saved from starvation or permanent physical damage, they deflate any well-intentioned intention due to the desired and purposefully evoked negative echo.

On the contrary, it is perverted, and the supposedly good deed causes more bad things than if it had never happened. The author also dares to be one of the first to criticize the sacrosanct figure of Mahatma Gandhi, the impact of Buddhism on Asian societies and the role of Buddhism in Japan at the time of the Second World War. To illustrate the proportional increase in intolerance per believer Hitchens refers to the different reaction patterns of believers and atheists.

A disciple of all stripes will never tire of criticizing and attacking the religion or even the pure disbelief of others. Saw it on the foundation of his irrational construct.

Attending a Mass, celebration, or just a non-inconspicuous event from another faith community can turn out to be more and more impossible with increasing radicalism.

On the other hand, tolerant, secular believers, atheists, and agnostics do not have to struggle with rolled-up toenails and internal turmoil when attending cultic acts of various religions and sects. By the way, the state recognition makes the difference between secret rite and in the light of the legitimacy of sun-worshiping religion. Also, this recognition is based on pure numbers. The basic concept of ignorant narrow-mindedness, unfortunately, often metastasizes, often starting from religion, across all strata of the population and aspects of life.

Be it politics, social systems, emancipation, education, economic models, knowledge formation or several other essential elements of life; the infiltrated poison has been active for millennia. Moreover, you can see that everywhere, based on the societies that were built on such structures and concepts and for much more substantial parts, as an enlightened person wants to acknowledge, still is found. An epigenetic analysis would be interesting. In the meantime, in the case of religion, fortunately, it has now become acceptable to produce criticism and one's own opinion.

As far as the economic system, monetary and financial systems, the nature of democratic participation and the influence of view, the media and unwritten laws, doctrines and unassailable dogmas are concerned, mankind faces a similar challenge as at the beginning of religious foundations.

It is no longer necessary to obey the commandments of apologists for the political and economic world order, carved in stone, but digitized, which bears frightening resemblances to religious delusions. When economic and sociopolitical infidels are considered subversive elements, which merely belong to the extreme left and right, without any empirical evidence.

As an example, the attempt to conduct an objective conversation on controversial topics with an economist, banker, entrepreneur, politician or opinion leader. The same arrogance and narrow-mindedness as with a deluded believer will usually be delivered automatically. Instead of monasteries and churches, the false savior is honored in schools, universities, parliaments, committees and think tanks.

Unfortunately, humanity is only at the beginning of the rule of industrial conglomerates, and like all authoritarian secular and spiritual regimes before it seeks omnipotence.

Established only towards the mid to late second millennium, it had created a hitherto unknown alliance of Mammon and severe indoctrination that will change the world in a way that no autocratic regime before it did. So that after, in relation, such a short time. How such development continues is written in the history books. Nur mit Gottesbeweisen Hitchens liefert eine schwer in Abrede zu stellende, auf philosophische Aspekte verzichtende Streitschrift gegen den Glauben.

Doch leider weit gefehlt. Seien es Politik, Gesellschaftssysteme, Emanzipation, Erziehung, Wirtschaftsmodelle, Wissensbildung oder etliche andere essentielle Aspekte des Lebens, das eingesickerte Gift zeitigt seit Jahrtausenden Wirkung. Und das nach so kurzer Zeit. Nov 21, Mikey B. Hallelujah — the atheists strike back! Hitchens buys none of it; its just fables and hearsay upon hearsay past down from antiquity. Religions cause wars, they indoctrinate the young and they are immoral - the very opposite of what they claim to be.

Since the 18th century science has started to trump religion. The microscope, the telescope, discovery of fossils, exploration — all have either imploded religion or opened alternative Hallelujah — the atheists strike back! The microscope, the telescope, discovery of fossils, exploration — all have either imploded religion or opened alternative wide vistas.

Hitchens is more comfortable dealing and attacking the Judeo-Christian world than other religions. And sometimes he is too relentless. He misses the point with Gandhi. It is the way India achieved independence that is historically significant. Gandhi promoted innovative means of protest — marches, strikes — and more importantly, he never directly used violence or espoused violence and never accumulated wealth.

Gandhi is not solely remembered as a religious leader. As for the Civil Rights movement in the U. Later, clergy from across the U. Credit must be given where it is due. Hitchens is also rather hard on the personality of Jesus. A few have argued that the entire hierarchy and wealth of the Church — Catholic and Protestant - is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Nevertheless thank God for Christopher Hitchens!

I am so sick of hearing Presidential candidates talking about their faith and how often they pray. As Mr.

Hitchens points out it was people of faith who carried out the September 11th attacks. I also subscribe with Mr. Hitchens when he equates revolutionary dictatorships with theocracies. They espouse dogma and repression. Hitler was a Messiah to the German people. Religion condones the abuse and indoctrination of children. It is ridiculous to rely on texts of long ago to regulate your life. View all 5 comments. A third reread. A one-way conversation with the late Christopher Hitchens. God Is Not Great is Hitchen's castle of words.

One of many on various subjects. You might want to read this detailed book as well. I do not claim to be sagacious at all! Debates raged all over the world. Second read was on audio. His soothing voice put me to sleep every night for a while.

Third read now was to view its longevity an A third reread. Third read now was to view its longevity and relevance almost ten years after his passing. My argument: Different people build different bridges to God nirvana.

Or don't build them at all. They then worship their bridges instead of God. Hitchens: The argument with faith is the foundation and origin of all arguments, because it is the beginning—but not the end—of all arguments about philosophy, science, history, and human nature. It is also the beginning—but by no means the end—of all disputes about the good life and the just city. A bucket full of skepticism, with a clarity of style, combined with disciplined and candid thinking, Hitchens spent most of his life exposing the results of fanatical secularism and authoritarian religion upon history.

Both groups, throughout the ages instigated wars, raped women, killed children, destroyed nations, robbed people and destroyed freedom of choice. Religions exercised a theistic tyranny in the world and most of the time disguised it under blankets of euphemisms. Paradise mutilated. Hitchens with his linguistic weaponry is his usual self in addressing the issues. As a polemicist he is combative, elegant, and ruthless. The Latin religio respect for what is 'sacred' is combined with religare to bind, in the sens of an obligation to form the concept of organised religion.

A distinction in attire, narrative, symbols, festivals, feasts, intercession with a God or gods, marriage and funeral rites, music and art, mediation or initiation, sacrifice or service, and other aspects of a particular culture or social institution.

Social scientists recognize that religion exists as an organized and integrated set of beliefs, behaviors, and norms centered on basic social needs and values. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did.

And yet—the believers still claim to know! Not just to know, but to know everything. My response: The very same can be said about science and scientists. The current ferocious climate debate comes to mind. Politician can stand inline as well. Money and power. So simple. We do not believe in heaven or hell, yet no statistic will ever find that without these blandishments and threats we commit more crimes of greed or violence than the faithful.

We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. My response: I agree. It can be called a doctrine , or ideology to distinguish itself from a belief. But the practice or execution is exactly the same. Dissenters are persecuted, prosecuted, murdered, and socially shunned. History is full of it. From the quote: We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.

My response: A little bit of an ambitious statement. In any belief, dogma, ideology, it is simply not true. Sorry, Hitchy. People lose their lives, their jobs, future prospects, names, and everything else that can possibly eradicate their presence on earth for disagreeing with political views, religion, a monetized, politicized scientific mantra, or ideologies.

Nowadays it's even called doxxing. It has now come so far that anyone, including scholars, who question particular historical events will get arrested. It's now the law in many countries.

He continually repeats his statement: "Religion Poisons Everything" Isn't it also true of non-religious groups. For instance, Communists, claiming to be non-religious, also have distinctive features, such as group think, echo chambers. Self-interest is condemned. The Collective is everything. Supporters are called comrade. Free speech is gone, etc. BLM has a distinctive 'uniform' - black attire with black face covers.

Acting as an unofficial militias, yet defined as merely 'an idea'. How is that different from the black uniforms for nuns, black attire for Orthodox Jews, black cover-ups for Muslim women, orange uniforms for Buddhists, white garments for Christian Orthodoxy, African tribal 'uniforms'. Different uniforms for different 'armies' it is. Their actions reflects in history - badly so: brutality, horrific genocides don't you just love the euphemism 'ethnic cleansing'?

The pot should not call the kettle black. Hitchens indeed touches on Communism, or Marxism as a faith': Chapter Ten: The Tawdriness of the Miraculous and the Decline of Hell When I was a Marxist, I did not hold my opinions as a matter of faith but I did have the conviction that a sort of unified field theory might have been discovered.

The concept of historical and dialectical materialism was not an absolute and it did not have any supernatural element, but it did have its messianic element in the idea that an ultimate moment might arrive, and it most certainly had its martyrs and saints and doctrinaires and after a while its mutually excommunicating rival papacies. It also had its schisms and inquisitions and heresy hunts. I was a member of a dissident sect that admired Rosa Luxemburg and Leon Trotsky, and I can say definitely that we also had our prophets.

Rosa Luxemburg seemed almost like a combination of Cassandra and Jeremiah when she thundered about the consequences of the First World War, and the great three-volume biography of Leon Trotsky by Isaac Deutscher was actually entitled The Prophet in his three stages of being armed, unarmed, and outcast. For a good part of my life, I had a share in this idea that I have not yet quite abandoned.

But there came a time when I could not protect myself, and indeed did not wish to protect myself, from the onslaught of reality. Marxism, I conceded, had its intellectual and philosophical and ethical glories, but they were in the past. Something of the heroic period might perhaps be retained, but the fact had to be faced: there was no longer any guide to the future.

In addition, the very concept of a total solution had led to the most appalling human sacrifices, and to the invention of excuses for them. Those of us who had sought a rational alternative to religion had reached a terminus that was comparably dogmatic.

It is better to think of them as great and fallible imaginative essayists. Hitchens, might have been an autodidactic savant with a keen intelligence, and an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, but he was not a scientist either.

His mastery and Oxford degree was in words and knowledge. His journalistic skills enabled him to capture audiences with the right headlines. The information shared in this book about the history and dogma of different religions throughout the existence of mankind, and the scientific discoveries, some or most of it perhaps unknown to many readers, justify the time to explore his arguments.

His research is immense and varied. One addiction is replaced with another as a cure. The only 'cure' that works. We educate ourselves to become what we aspire to. Strength in numbers. We find solace in our choice of literature and ideas. All euphemisms for our mentors. That's the human race. He opens this book with reference to his school teacher Mrs.

Jean Watts, whom he adoringly calls a pious old trout. She introduced him to practical and textual criticism. She and the poet John Clare's rural poems played a big role in his formative years in becoming the insufferable little intellectual at the age of thirteen.

Philip Larkin's Poem ' Church-going , according to Hitchens, was the perfect capture of his own approach. For the rest you will have to read his memoir Hitch A Memoir Hitchens is never a quick read. He leaves little time or room for superficiality or indifference of thought. Hitchens is not a relaxing read. His books provoke thought, debate, questions.

It's never a one-sitting read. The information is always overwhelming. You might also find his portrayal of mother Theresa insightful. I admire Christopher Hitchens and will forever be one of his devoted groupies. His outspokenness; rabble-rousing; compassionate nature. His journalistic skills allowed him to confront issues and stir debate. He covered a wide range of subjects in his writings and done so with a volatile combination of historical knowledge, a savage wit, and an acute feel for irony and contradiction.

However, I expected more clarity on the real reasons and motivation behind a worldwide Antisemitism revolt than the usual accusations of Christians.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his book Two Hundred Years Together and novels such as The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov , both illuminated the issues and are widely acclaimed publications. The revolt against Judaism was not purely Christian in origin. Although the issues was briefly mentioned in God Is Not Great , it is clear that this issue might have been avoided by Hitchens.

His comments on the South African situation also lacked serious insight. His research in this regard was not as meticulous as was hoped for. For instance, he stated that Afrikaners supported Hitler, but in actual fact it was a very small group who did. They were supporting anyone who were against the English, after thousands of women and children both Black and White died in the British concentration camps.

The vast majority fought on the British side against Hitler. He also lacked serious insight into the origin of Apartheid. He was partly selectively correct though. James A Michener's book, The Covenant, would have been of great value.

The book leaves the reader with this question: What is your choice of drug, and why. Faith, non-religious or religious rituals, and drugs, have the same soothing addictive psychogenic effect. Organized religion is something totally different. Faith as nirvana or nightmare. Part of Hitchens' frustration is also to be found in the fact that people are so damn gullible. How can anyone believe this stuff?

Even in its foundations most religions are obviously built up on previous ones; so, for example: "Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require. Hitchens offers all sorts of personal anecdotes, and he certainly has had a wide range of experiences, and he has gotten around.

But that, and his discussion of a large number of religious issues, make for a mess of an argument. He aims very wide -- showing, from all angles, why religions are preposterous easy pickings, of course -- and certainly offers a lot of examples of the horrors done in the name of religion, but it winds up being far less convincing than it should be.

Hitchens does offer -- here and there and everywhere -- proper objections to all sorts of aspects of religion, from the misguided and dangerous attitudes towards sex to their ridiculous foundations, and he does show, again and again, what terrible consequences all this has, but all these parts don't add up to much of a whole. Most of the objections are familiar, and if some of the examples and the way they are put are more colourful than usual they are still not effectively presented in any way that is likely to lead a believer or a sympathiser to re-think their attitude.

As for readers who agree with Hitchens, they'll wonder what the fuss is about as he keeps stating yet more of the obvious. Certainly, his call for "a renewed Enlightenment" is one that one wishes would be heeded, but it seems unlikely that this book will help pave the way. Trying to meet all your book preview and review needs. Contents: Main. Dieu n'est pas grand - France. Der Herr ist kein Hirte - Deutschland. Boston Globe.