Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Unavailable
God Is Not Great
Unavailable
God Is Not Great
Unavailable
God Is Not Great
Ebook385 pages8 hours

God Is Not Great

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

4/5

()

Currently unavailable

Currently unavailable

About this ebook

In god is Not Great Hitchens turned his formidable eloquence and rhetorical energy to the most controversial issue in the world: God and religion. The result is a devastating critique of religious faith

god Is Not Great is the ultimate case against religion. In a series of acute readings of the major religious texts, Christopher Hitchens demonstrates the ways in which religion is man-made, dangerously sexually repressive and distorts the very origins of the cosmos. Above all, Hitchens argues that the concept of an omniscient God has profoundly damaged humanity, and proposes that the world might be a great deal better off without 'him'.

LanguageEnglish
Release dateNov 1, 2011
ISBN9780857897152
Unavailable
God Is Not Great
Author

Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens was the author of numerous books, including the controversial international bestseller God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Read more from Christopher Hitchens

Related to God Is Not Great

Related ebooks

Atheism For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for God Is Not Great

Rating: 3.885488156833773 out of 5 stars
4/5

1,895 ratings112 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Hundreds of other authors have shown how religion poisoned history. Now, Christopher Hitchens brings that saga of posioning up to date. This is a book you can not put down as sentence after sentence reminds the reader of the evils of religion and the horrors that can be committed in the 'name of god'. Not since Jack Miles' God: A Biographyhas the nightmare of the old testament been better enunciated. Buddhism seems to come off a bit better than most when he handles it with one of the most humorous moments in the book -- a buddhist monk asking a hot dog seller to 'make him one with everything'. A great book by a terrific author! There will surely be millions who disagree with him, but if read with an open mind this is a book that will help to understand better both sides of the oldest argument in human history.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    A classic in its field. Hitchens' elegant and sophisticated writing style might not suit everyone, and may at times seem obtuse without a passing familiarity with history and historical philosophers. Not necessarily for beginners.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    I have the audio version of this as well (because Christopher Hitchens lends his own voice to it, and why wouldn't he?), and it's my favorite book of its kind. It delves into specific religions, especially the ones more familiar to Western readers, but also to the idea of religion in and of itself. As always, I learned something from it that I hadn't before. If anything, it helped me understand myself as a person and my own beliefs.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Christopher Hitchens has added his name to that of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins as an aggressive modern atheist. The subtitle of the book, "How Religion Poisons Everything," pretty effectively states its main thesis.Hitchens begins by citing "four irreducible objections to religious faith": 1. misrepresentation of the origins of man and the cosmos; 2. combining the maximun of servility with solipsism; 3. it is the result and cause of dangerous sexual repression, and 4. it is grounded on wish thinking. He then goes on to add several other problems, namely that religion is man-made and that it is incapable of leaving the non-religious alone because of its insufferable belief that it is TRUE. Hitchens' writing is not always linear and well organized, but it is usually entertaining. For example, he cites the example of a proposition given him by a Protestant broadcaster. If you were approached by a group of unfamiliar men at night, would you feel more safe or less safe if you knew they were coming from a religious service. Hitchens answers by saying that he has had that experience, but limits his response to the facts occurring in cities beginning with the letter B: Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem, and Baghdad. He hardly needs to add any detail.All religions are his targets, but the Muslims seem to come off worst, probably because they are the worst of the world's citizens.He asserts that all religions' metaphysical claims are false because they were all articulated at a time when men were profoundly ignorant about physics and biological evolution. He rails against the arguments for God from the complexity of design. He points out that biological systems are flawed, with much less efficient designs than an omnipotent god [who was a really good engineer] would come up with. Hitchens attacks all the holy writs. He devotes a chapter to the "nightmare of the Old Testament" with is nasty, capricious god; he ridicules the inconsistencies of the New Testament; and he points out that the Koran contains almost nothing original other than to repeat older tales in Arabic. As to whether religion causes men to behave better, he cites the defense of slavery put up by American Protestants and the Koran. He argues that India's transition from British rule would have been much less violent had it not been for Gandhi's militant Hinduism: just when India needed a modern secular nationalist leader, it got a fakir and guru instead.Hitchens concludes by calling for a new enlightenment, taking a pot shot at religion as "fossilized philosophy", or philosophy with the questions left out. He says we show too much respect for crazy religious attitudes, like those of the Muslims who condemned the Danish newspaper for printing the cartoons of Mohammed. He points out that scientific studies have shown that prayer has no effect whatsoever. He wants more confidence in our ability to learn through the scientific method, but to clear the mind for this project, "it becomes necessary to know the enemy, and to prepare to fight it."(JAB)
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    This book is along the lines of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Hitchens is a deeper thinker than Dawkins, however, and the book is somewhat harder to understand. Rather than attempt to impeach religion, as Dawkins did, Hitchens uses historical examples to support his contentions that religion has been bad for the world generally.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Couldn't have said it better myself. I've always been disgruntled that official religions have spoiled any sense of awe or wonder in what we have right here and now...which is pretty darned good as far as paradise goes.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Very compelling read.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Hitchens makes the fascinating case against religion, demonstrating its cruelties, amoralities, immoralities, irrationalities, and barbarism. Densely written, I often had to re-read paragraphs just to relish the layers of irony and grasp the depth of what he was saying. Worth every difficult word and highly recommended.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Mr Hitchens takes us on a deep-dive of the ill-effects of religion/god in all the sections of this book. I really enjoyed his argument style and it kept me going on-and-on.Chapter 13: Does Religion Make People Behave BetterChapter 16: Is Religion Child Abuse?Chapter 19: In Conclusion: The Need for a New Enlightenmentare sections you don't want to miss.Chapter 9: The Koran Is Borrowed from Both Jewish and Christian Myths was an eye-opener. The extent of research done by the author is evident in the pages of valuable information in the book."People are always free to make up a religion that suits or gratifies or flatters them." - how absolutely true!Although I've rated this book as a 5-stars, I feel that Dr. Dawkins makes better 'hit right on the nail' kinda points! - The God Delusion
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    This is a great rhetorical and anecdotal companion piece to the more scientific and philosophical works of Dawkins, Harris and Dennett.Of the four, this is the most likely to influence a true believer despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that Hitchens does not resort to ponderous proofs. In addition, he does not focus exclusively on Christianity as the others tend to do. Instead, he spreads his criticism across all major faiths, including several of the eastern religions.The only flaw in this book is that Hitchens tends to use the word "proves" more than it is justified. Since this is a rhetorical book, nothing in it can be said to "prove" anything... but that does not affect the author's intellectual persuasiveness.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Loved this book. Hitchens is my kind of Atheist, swayed not by dogma (or in blind opposition to it) but who seeks to understands religion then reject it on it's own absurdity. He opens with a discussion about why there are, and will never be, any modern "prophets" along the lines of those so seemingly common-place in the Middle Ages and earlier. He discusses how religion grew to be a tool to control the masses, much to the benefit of the few on top. He talks how dangerous some ancient barbaric rituals can be in modern society (a knowingly diseased mohel in NYC infected numerous babies, with two of them dying, but since it was under the auspices of religion, he was not charged with a crime). He also covers some of the same ground Carl Sagan did in Demon Haunted World by associating medieval demonic possession claims with modern UFO abductee nutjobs. And, of course, he discusses the negative effects on national leadership throughout the world and it's influence on war. All of the major religions try to impose social order with variations of "thou shalt not kill," but the also ALL have an exception making it okay to kill people of different faiths. Again, this ties back to control...you want to keep the rabble domesticated until such a time as you wish to wield them as a weapon against your enemies (the "you" being the head of church and/or state). The section where he debases "Intelligent Design" is amusing, but then again, attacking that nonsense (and all creationism) is shooting fish in a barrel. It never ceases to entertain, though.Hitchens traveled around the world, participated in many religious rituals, and investigated many claims. He doesn't talk smack without backing it up, often using religious texts themselves as ammunition. I look forward to reading more of his work...not since Carl Sagan died have I read such a reasoned, common-sense narrative on this topic.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    I found this book to be utterly fascinating and compelling. Christopher Hitchens makes a strong case for supporting his subtitle: How Religion Poisons Everything. A very strong case. Although, I find it hard to imagine people with unwavering faith in God reading more than three pages of this book. But I must admit, my thinking closely paralleled that of Hitchens even before I read this book. And his thinking is much more eloquent. He's a talented writer. I can't remember a more gripping work of non-fiction. Not only is Christopher Hitchens well-read (he's read the bible more than once as well as translations of the Koran), but he's also well-traveled as well. He backs up his beliefs with many anecdotes from his own life (he's also the recipient of many death threats from the more fanatical believers.) He writes clearly and forcefully. I found his dissection of the "Intelligent Design" position extremely well done and even smile-producing (and after all, it's an easy target). His sense of humor shows through as well as his modesty. Out of curiosity, I briefly perused some of the many customer comments about this book on Amazon. Not surprisingly, he manages to split his reviewers into two distinct camps. Put me in the five-star camp.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Hitchens was a great writer. Some people don't like this book because he went after religion aggressively, the way the pious go after those they disagree with. I loved Hitchen's righteous anger at the charlatans and fools of religion.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    This book feels like it's at odds with itself. Its author seems to have both great respect for religion and yet utter disdain and even disgust for it. I suppose that's part of the trouble of living in a world whose history and culture are so thoroughly saturated with it. On the one hand, people do truly terrible things in the name of religion - any religion - but on the other, it's such a huge part of humankind, for better or worse. If you read this, prepared to be horrified, but also edified, mystified, and even occasionally amused. Definitely worth reading by people of faith, if only to hear a few new arguments from the "other side". I don't think it'll convince anyone either way, but I definitely learned a lot of new things.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Wittier and sharper than The God Delusion. Hitchins tears into the Abrahamic faiths and exposes the hypocrisy, sexism, xenephobia and downtight nonsense at their heart. Essential reading.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. I'm reviewing this book as an evangelical Christian. I have long wanted to read a Hitchens book after enjoying many of his witty book reviews in The Atlantic and seeing the respect other evangelicals had for Hitchens after engaging him personally. As he wrote in his book, he spent much of his time among Christian or religious friends. He is a character.


    Epistomological humility is the main lesson I gleaned from this book. Most of my Christian friends (myself included) are very confident in their theological positions and all of them, whether they admit it or not, look slightly down their nose at other positions as "errant" and therefore inferior. But this is arrogance. To think that of all the billions of people who have existed on earth, I was not only chosen by God and ended up in the one True religion, but have also ended up in precisely the right branch of Christianity. Not only that, but my specific school of thought within that branch contains the most right interpretation of Scripture written in other languages and cultures that existed thousands of years ago. That my team is the "most right" that ever existed. What are the odds of this? Incalculable. Yet, that's what most of us believe. So, maybe we should all be more humble. I would do better to admit as Baptist theologian/pastor Rodney Reeves does that I'm Baptist just because I was raised Baptist.


    I enjoyed Hitchens' critique of the various religions. Very few have the breadth of knowledge and experience of travel, marriage, working, and friendships in so many religions and culture. Hitchens is like the anti-C.S. Lewis, well-steeped in world literature and philosophy but coming down on the opposite side of Lewis' "Lord, liar, or lunatic" proposition-- which Hitchens praises Lewis for.

    A couple of weaknesses I found in Hitchens' arguments:

    Hitchens repeatedly lauds the moral position and behavior of himself and other atheists/humanists. He repeatedly criticizes religions for promoting "evil" deeds such as murder, genocide, slavery, etc. This requires that morality exists and can be defined--that all is not relative. But Christianity justifies its moral code on the basic idea that man was created in God's image. This is the reason given in Genesis for murder being criminal. Without God, and an absolute truth, what basis does Hitchens or other atheists give for criticizing the behavior of others? Acknowledging and defining "evil" is a real philosophical problem for atheists, and Hitchens avoids that weakness completely.

    Hitchens gives a good summary of arguments against Michael Behe's theory of irreducible complexity. He gives new scientific evidence and theory explaining the evolution of the eye, for example. He points out that we have plenty of useless body parts, and asks why an intelligent designer would design an eye that would require that images taken in be flipped before processed by the brain. That the body is a fairly inefficient system that if we could start from scratch and design ourselves we could make more efficient. My critique:
    How did the first organism know that there was light to see and "data" to be received from it? Where did the light come from, and the data embedded in it? How did it know that the "data" could be decoded and made useful via something called "nerves"? He does critique the "have you ever seen a car without a maker?" argument and other more simple ones that Christians frequently use. But he does not explain a first cause. Stephen Hawking, in his essays published in Black Holes and Baby Universes, states that the universe's origins are explained by either a Grand Unifying Theory of physics, or a creator God. Hawking is betting on the GUT. Hitchens does not acknowledge that tradeoff, even though he quotes Hawking.

    Hitchens does not believe in a literal resurrection because he is uncertain that a Jesus ever existed. He doesn't address the radically changed behavior of Jesus' followers after the resurrection event, or their peculiar martyrdoms. Many biblical critics, including those in the Jesus Seminar, acknowledge that "something happened" around the time of Jesus' supposed resurrection that is hard to explain with any physical or scientific explanations. Hitchens does not address those concerns, seemingly lumping in Christian martyrdom as the same as those seen in Islam, Mormonism, or other religions.

    I enjoyed Hitchens' critiques of Mormonism and Islam, showing them as essentially the flip sides of the same coin (which I have often argued). He does a great job showing the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the Catholic Church when it comes to moral posturing.He points out an awful lot in the history of all the religions that adherents would rather forget.

    In an interview I saw with Hitchens late in his life (I believe it was on 60 Minutes) he stated that he did not deny the chance that a God may be out there, he was just supremely confident that none of the religions and explanations for him here on earth were correct. It's important to keep that statement in mind while reading this book.

    If you want a more complete rebuttal to Hitchens et al, I would recommend William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith, which at one time included a 13-cassette audio series that I listened to in college and gleaned quite a bit from.

    I recommend Hitchens book for though-provoking discussion and even entertainment value. I would argue that every Christian should read this book and be ready to give a response to it. I give it 4 stars out of 5.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Though this anti-religious polemic makes some interesting points about the issues surrounding blind faith, fanaticism, and many aspects of religiosity, I doubt he'll get a whole lot of converts from it. There were a number of times in this book I wanted to go and take philosophy classes because I just knew he was making erroneous claims and assumptions; I just didn't know what they were called. On the plus side, while this book did absolutely nothing to shake my faith, it did an excellent job of making sure I'm not taking it for granted. I do agree with his assessment that religion is not off limits for serious consideration and philosophical or scholarly investigations. I do have a slight quibble with his assertion that it should be scientific, because faith and God and religion are often as difficult to study scientifically as imagination or love or hate. Just because they can't be quantified and dissected doesn't mean they cannot exist.My other complaint is that he too often jumps to conclusions because they are "obvious" or something that any "school child should be able to see by now." Not only is this a weak argument that is also incredibly insulting and patronizing, it is the same argument that religious thinkers have been using (I think Thomas of Aquinas used it quite frequently, in fact-and I know Absalom did).All that being said, it makes a good addition to any readings of an examined faith, which is something to not be taken advantage of. He also brings up some very interesting issues about many religions, including strange admonitions regarding sex, the birth canal, and diet. He did a good job of putting words to why I converted from Catholocism, in fact.While I think these are excellent at explaining what errors religion has made, it does not make a good argument to dispose of religion and faith all together for materialistic atheism.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Hitchens is smart and witty--and he is taking on one of the most controversial issues: Religion.

    Hitchen's point is simple: religion is bad, it makes people do bad things. There are people who do good things in the name of religion, but he also asks: What great thing could a person do that he could not do without religion? (Is religion needed to make humans good? Hitchens would say, judging by all of the terrible things that people have done in the name of religion...no.)

    This was a fascinating (and pretty quick) read. While reading this book I thought to myself, "I wish I could teach my students to write like this." Every sentence and every word is carefully chosen to support his anti-religious point of view. He writes this book very well.

    Whether or not you believe in what he is saying, this is a great book to learn the power of effective arguments!
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    The title actually reflects the book's tone: In the first half of the book, Hitchens guides us through myth and fact with adelightfully dry, terribly British wit. About two thirds through, the tone crumbles into a cynical rant, although well constructed and researched. It was, nevertheless, a rant in the end. Hitchens loses his authority when he changes tone. I could almost hear his knotted fist rising in the air in the last third of God is Not Great. By the end, I found myself missing the rhythm he bagan with. A hollow finish.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I felt this is more of his rantings rather than pointing out "how religion poisons everything." He does prove his point, but to me, this book was a bit too long for what it was.Two and a half out of five.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    A wonderfully thought provoking book. The premise being that while one can understand the roots of faith in a god, science and human reason have taken us beyond the need to believe in a god that controls our fates; we know better now than to believe in impossible miracles or to lay our trust in something that cannot exist. Beyond that, organized religion - and Hitchens hammers all organized religions, Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, and pantheism - stands in the way of science, politics, medicine, and human advancement. Hitchens puts to paper what many of us know and understand already, but most are afraid of saying out loud. Though the writing dragged and confused at points, it's still the best written argument against blind faith that I've come across.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    A point well argued; a bit meandering at times.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I feel as if my preconceptions about this book were, for the most part, bang-on (or maybe they were so strong I was unable to judge it on its own merits...). Hitchens covers much of the same ground as Dawkins did in The God Delusion; arguments from design, the superiority of science as a way of understanding the world, the violence of religion, the ridiculous contents of the Bible and the Koran, the lack of connection between religion and morality, religion as child abuse and just how damn great it is to be an atheist (and how many admirable people have been unbelievers and have been forced to hide it). Problem is, Hitchens covers this ground in a much less coherent way. Sure, Hitchens can turn a phrase and provide quite illustrative anecdotes from his years of experience as a journalist, but his book is very flawed. Firstly, Hitchens does not always structure his arguments very well. The best example is the fifth chapter, The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False. This chapter is essentially a twelve page rant about how great science is, but Hitchens never properly outlines what 'claims' he is actually arguing against. The chapter title is just stated, not justified or explained, and Hitchens goes off on a rant about science. The following chapter, Arguments from Design, has much the same problem. This makes him compare unfavourably with Harris and Dawkins.Hitchens' other problem is his inability to separate his emotions from his reason. This is not good for a book that is supposed to be about the superiority of reason. Again, the two chapters mentioned above are good examples of this, as is the unfortunate opening chapter, in which Hitchens gives an intensely obnoxious rant about how great atheists are. He speaks about us as if we're some sort of team, or nationalistic group, and even though I'm in this group I found it extremely irritating. It wasn't until I was about halfway through the book that I forgave him for that. Another problem with Hitchens is his odd tendency to not attempt to make a generalisation from the many anecdotes he uses. He just states the anecdote, and that is that. It is frustrating that he does this, especially since he does it in some of the book's strongest sections- The Tawdriness of the Miraculous (this chapter has 'And the Decline of Hell' added to the end of it, but there's actually nothing about Hell in it, as if Hitchens forgot to write that part or just liked the title) Religion's Corrupt Beginnings, How Religions End, There Is No 'Eastern' Solution all have this happen. Subsequently, I am left wondering what exactly Hitchens' argument is, especially when the generalised statements are seriously needed for him to justify his big claims. Particularly unconvincing is the chapter on eastern religion, where Hitchens brings himself out against Sam Harris' claims in his book The End of Faith without good justification. He just states examples of where people of eastern religions have done horrific things and leaves it at that. It seems pathetically little to dismiss entire religions on. Sam Harris doesn't claim Buddhism, in particular, is perfect; he just claims that, unlike western religions, when you shave them of all their nonsense, there's still a lot of worthwhile stuff left. His arguments are much more convincing than Hitchens', since there is actually some sophistication to them. On top of all this, and I sort of alluded to this earlier, Hitchens doesn't have his own unique angle from which to come at these issues. Dawkins is a defender of evolutionary science (and cosmology to some extent); Harris talks about matters of morality and the science of belief; Dennett studies religion as a natural phenomenon (need to read his book Breaking the Spell). Hitchens is just...Hitchens. He's just a journalist with a bit of charisma, and so while he may be a good speaker on these matters (better than the others), his arguments are ultimately little better than the ones I could churn out. I just wouldn't sound as good when making them. So Hitchens' book is incoherent, unoriginal and contains some pretty weak arguments. Despite these massive flaws, it's not awful; as I said, Hitchens can write at the very least, and he does have his strong points. For one, Hitchens ends strongly, with the chapters Religion as Original Sin, The Last Ditch Case Against Secularism and The Resistance of the Rational proving to be his best chapters; why Religion as Original Sin was not his opening chapter, I don't know, as its much better than anything in the first half of the book. Hitchens almost has his own angle in that chapter, and it seems he has sort of developed his own angle since, with the whole 'Religion as Totalitarianism' line he now has. But ultimately, God is Not Great is a deeply flawed book, and I can hardly recommend it, especially if you haven't read Dawkins or Harris. It's more likely to make you think atheists are jerks with few good arguments, even if you are actually an atheist.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Although some of the facts stated by Hitchens are somewhat shaky, overall his arguments are compelling. He does a good job of exploring where morality does (and perhaps more importantly) does not come from. The book is most valuable as a refutation of the close-minded yet popularly-held opinion that the World would be in grave moral danger if not for the warm, loving embrace of its religions. It is weakest in the points at which the author descends into a preachy tone reminiscent of his rivals.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    I was disappointed in this book, although I understand others have loved it. The only reason I gave the book 2 stars was because I thought the writer was a good writer. His arguments seemed old and elementary, while the overall feel of the book felt like it belonged on political talk radio. I thought that objectivity was lacking and that the author concluded that human behaviors are responsible for legitimizing any god. By using extreme examples, I think his arguments felt shallow and obnoxious. I know others have found Dawkins book more insightful, and I would really hope this is true.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Highly enjoyable polemic on religions.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    My Baptist mother didn't appreciate seeing this on my bookshelf when she came for a visit. Now she's worried for my soul and the souls of my young children. Hitchens can be a little over the top in his rhetoric. Perhaps a slightly more genteel approach would be a better way to spread the good news.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Hitchens has written a thought provking book. I don't agree with him, but I do see how and why he has his belief.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Rambling and emotional, with many excellent, sometimes sickening, examples of the perversions of organized religions.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I'm sure I'm not alone in being one of those Christians who enjoyed Hitchens. I liked his style, candor, pugnacity. What a fun and rewarding evening it might have been to sit down and match wits, and even if you lost the argument (likely) it would be rewarding to rebuild your defenses. This book is enjoyable for a while but grows tiresome. If one knows some intellectual history, has read a little philosophy, knows a bit about the world's religions, has lived some of the same history, has read Fawn Brodie or Mary McCarthy and doesn't have to look up Sabbatai Zevi, maybe known a few Trotskyists, then it becomes a wee bit pedantic. I suppose it is written to rally nascent young atheists, and for them it will be inspiring. I found it strangely like a flashback to high school, which was a long time ago in my case. I had friends who loved to debate with me about my Christian beliefs, but about half the time the debate degenerated into uninspired comedy. One question, assertion, or challenge was fired right after another. As soon as one began to answer, another charge, assertion, question was hurled. God is not Great begins to have a similar effect. Assertions pose as arguments, conversation starters pose as argument closers, and just as you begin to dig in to one argument, the table is turned over and reset with new dishes. I suppose I'm also not alone in suggesting that Hitchen's real disgust is probably with humanity, or at least most of us except Mencken, Einstein, maybe Spinoza and a handful of others. It is no surprise to many of us, i.e. the other side, that religion is corruptible, prone to nurture charlatans, and problems. It is no surprise to us that ignorance has often reigned by force, and among the force it has employed have been the religions of the world. Anything with human fingerprints on it shares this same painful record. No amount of failure, duplicity, or cruelty is a defeater for Christians. No number of examples of religion in service of ignorance would be either. We're the people who believe in things like sin and human weakness, and believe that ground zero of human depravity is found in religious conceits. Hitchens draws easy lines between religion and the poisonous turns of human history. I found the book to be a long genetic fallacy, failing to look behind the curtain of corrupt religion to see if any other wizards might also be pulling the strings at times. Oh well. What a loss that Hitchens died too young. His was a keen mind and one it seems always in progress. Where might it have ended up?