Is it a root source book of the Atheists? What are its good points or bad points?

I have started reading it but I have not yet finished it.

Bad points: Christopher Hitchens botches several passages and their meanings from the Bible

Good points: It's Christopher Hitchens so who cares if he made any mistakes. They are hardly noticeable.

paarsurrey wrote:Is it a root source book of the Atheists? What are its good points or bad points?

I have started reading it but I have not yet finished it.

I haven't read it, paar, but I look forward to your review!

I have it on audio read by the man himself. Long time since I listened.

Haven't read it. I suspect it would be telling me a lot of stuff that I already knew.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "root source book of the Atheists".

Good points: It's got that refreshing unwillingness to pull any punches and really admit just how ridiculous and/or poisonous some aspects of religion are, that Hitchens did so well. It's got some interesting takes on aspects of religion that even those of us who don't believe in it may have taken for granted and accepted for too long.

Bad points: He over-extends himself by his insistance on presenting his view as an absolute for all religion everywhere, rather than just accepting its limitations. In particular, he includes a couple of chapters on Eastern religions, which he clearly knows almost nothing about, and makes woefully inaccurate generalisations based on obviously cherry-picked examples. And even there, he has to massively overstate the importance of religion or make incredibly ignorant self-serving assumptions about the nature of that importance (as in the case of the Japanese kamakazis).

Hitchens was a journalist and not a great writer really. He knew all the journalist's tricks of how to express himself with an eye-catching point of view and an engaging sense of humour. He knew how to make you keep reading by writing things that shock and challenge, and making you wait for their explanation. But great writers know their limitations and how much background knowledge about a subject is necessary to justify a contentious point of view about it. They would never make the mistake of signing their names to some of the drivel in the tail-end of that book.

Nebogipfel wrote:Haven't read it. I suspect it would be telling me a lot of stuff that I already knew.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "root source book of the Atheists".

Same here, on both points.

Paul wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:Haven't read it. I suspect it would be telling me a lot of stuff that I already knew.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "root source book of the Atheists".

Same here, on both points.

I think he's asking if it's a bible. Everyone must have a bible of some sort, apparently.

It's a polemic, and like almost all polemics it is flawed in taking its premise to an extreme. But it has a lot of interesting points and is often beautifully written.

Sityl wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:Is it a root source book of the Atheists? What are its good points or bad points?

I have started reading it but I have not yet finished it.

I haven't read it, paar, but I look forward to your review!

Please read it so that when you also finish we could compare our notes.
If you read it; please do tell me the strongest single point which he could make against the truthful religion.

mraltair wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:Is it a root source book of the Atheists? What are its good points or bad points?

I have started reading it but I have not yet finished it.

Surely reading it will tell you it's good/bad points?

It's been a while since I read it, I think I'll give it another read soon. I did like it. It was one of the first books on religion I ever read and probably the one that stood out.

Please highlight ONE point he could make against the truthful religion; you may do it after your second fresh reading or from your memory.

Nebogipfel wrote:Haven't read it. I suspect it would be telling me a lot of stuff that I already knew.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "root source book of the Atheists".

Our friend Agrippina suggested its reading to me; I thought it is the book on which the atheists bank upon.

Please read it and then rate it viz-a-viz the best book you have read in your life; naming the book.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:Is it a root source book of the Atheists? What are its good points or bad points?

I have started reading it but I have not yet finished it.

It does of course not serve a role comparable to how the Bible is used in evangelical protestantism or the Quran is used in Islam - I hope you realize that there's no normative reason why an approach to understanding reality would need a Bible- or Quran-analogy.

Since you people adhere to this ideology ( or if you think atheis is no ideology; then non-ideaology); so you must be knowing the best book on atheism; I though this must be the best book thats why our friend has suggested me reading it.

CookieJon wrote:

Paul wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:Haven't read it. I suspect it would be telling me a lot of stuff that I already knew.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "root source book of the Atheists".

Same here, on both points.

I think he's asking if it's a bible. Everyone must have a bible of some sort, apparently.

I never said that; I don't think in these terms.

paarsurrey wrote:Is it a root source book of the Atheists?

No. Do you think it might be a good source of straw for you?

I have not read it nor will I be taking up your later invitation to do so to compare it with Tolstoi or Joyce. I know why I am an atheist, have been for forty ears, and it does not depend on any author on the subject.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:Is it a root source book of the Atheists? What are its good points or bad points?

I have started reading it but I have not yet finished it.

It does of course not serve a role comparable to how the Bible is used in evangelical protestantism or the Quran is used in Islam - I hope you realize that there's no normative reason why an approach to understanding reality would need a Bible- or Quran-analogy.

I know that; and I know that you don't have one.

Even then there must be some best book of atheists which could be easily understood by an ordinary man; life is for everybody so everybody must be able to understand reality; simple, natural and beautiful.

And I think one reads a best book in life; just compare both.

Xeno wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:Is it a root source book of the Atheists?

No. Do you think it might be a good source of straw for you?

I have not read it nor will I be taking up your later invitation to do so to compare it with Tolstoi or Joyce. I know why I am an atheist, have been for forty ears, and it does not depend on any author on the subject.

It is OK; there could be some persons like you; but I think not the whole lot of Atheists might be like you.

virphen wrote:It's a polemic, and like almost all polemics it is flawed in taking its premise to an extreme. But it has a lot of interesting points and is often beautifully written.

Which point did you like the most? Please