What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless
Why are atheists angry?
Is it because they're selfish, joyless, lacking in meaning, and alienated from God?
Or is it because they have legitimate reasons to be angry—and are ready to do something about it?
Armed with passionate outrage, absurdist humor, and calm intelligence, popular blogger Greta Christina makes a powerful case for outspoken atheist activism, and explains the empathy and justice that drive it.
This accessible, personal, down-to-earth book speaks not only to atheists, but to believers who want to understand the so-called "new atheism." Why Are You Atheists So Angry? drops a bombshell on the destructive force of religious faith—and gives a voice to millions of angry atheists.
Is it because they're selfish, joyless, lacking in meaning, and alienated from God?
Or is it because they have legitimate reasons to be angry—and are ready to do something about it?
Armed with passionate outrage, absurdist humor, and calm intelligence, popular blogger Greta Christina makes a powerful case for outspoken atheist activism, and explains the empathy and justice that drive it.
This accessible, personal, down-to-earth book speaks not only to atheists, but to believers who want to understand the so-called "new atheism." Why Are You Atheists So Angry? drops a bombshell on the destructive force of religious faith—and gives a voice to millions of angry atheists.
188 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 18, 2012
60 people are currently reading
1966 people want to read
About the author
Greta Christina
19 books97 followersGreta Christina has been writing professionally since 1989, on topics including atheism, sexuality and sex-positivity, LGBT issues, politics, culture, and whatever crosses her mind. She is on the speakers's bureaus of the Secular Student Alliance and the Center for Inquiry. She is editor of the "Best Erotic Comics" anthology series, and of "Paying For It: A Guide by Sex Workers for Their Clients." Her writing has appeared in multiple magazines and newspapers, including Ms., Penthouse, Chicago Sun-Times, On Our Backs, and Skeptical Inquirer, and numerous anthologies, including "Everything You Know About God Is Wrong" and three volumes of "Best American Erotica." She lives in San Francisco with her wife, Ingrid.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 130 reviews
April 23, 2012
I have been a happy godless for long time. I used to call myself an agnostic and a skeptic. Quiet books like "Why I am not a Christian" by Betrand Russell were enough to comfort me in my chosen path.
Then came Richard Dawkins, with its scientific review of the whole matter, and I abandoned the "agnostic" label for the more telling and representative "atheist".
Yet, I was still lacking something. I found myself quite enraged with religion, and I was looking for a way of putting some order in that rage. Greta Christina's book "Why are You Atheists So Angry?" helped me find order into my internal anger and added some more reasoning and fundament to topics that I had thought out on my own and were only partially developed.
I have to admit: I am fertile ground for this kind of book. There is nothing I need being converted to. But the book is a pleasure to read, and has given me the reassurance that my distaste for religion is shared by many people.
The book is also great because it gives useful resources and an insight into the world of the organized resistance to the abuses of the religious zealots.
Then came Richard Dawkins, with its scientific review of the whole matter, and I abandoned the "agnostic" label for the more telling and representative "atheist".
Yet, I was still lacking something. I found myself quite enraged with religion, and I was looking for a way of putting some order in that rage. Greta Christina's book "Why are You Atheists So Angry?" helped me find order into my internal anger and added some more reasoning and fundament to topics that I had thought out on my own and were only partially developed.
I have to admit: I am fertile ground for this kind of book. There is nothing I need being converted to. But the book is a pleasure to read, and has given me the reassurance that my distaste for religion is shared by many people.
The book is also great because it gives useful resources and an insight into the world of the organized resistance to the abuses of the religious zealots.
March 31, 2012
I seem to have a hard time reading books about atheism. It's probably because, as they say, atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. There's not much to talk about besides that religion sucks, and that's sort of hard to talk about without sounding like an asshole.
I've tried to read The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, I've tried to read God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and I've tried to read Atheism: A Reader. I got about halfway through the last and only a few pages into the others. I had turned my attention to books about science and math, which are essentially books about atheism when you get down to it and also have the benefit of making me more informed about topics. Then Why Are You Atheists So Angry? came out, I was heading to the Reason Rally and I decided to pick it up to read while on vacation.
This is the atheist book I've been wanting to read.
It's the sort of book that has left me pointing at nothing and shouting "Yes! Yes! Exactly!" Wanting to run to my religious friends and show it to them and ask how they can possibly believe.
It starts with the "litany of rage," enumerating all the reasons why atheists -- and anyone with a conscience -- should be angry. Then Greta Christina calmly and methodically shows why anyone saying "Yes, but I'm fine because-" is, frankly, full of shit.
This book is great for atheists because it gives well reasoned explanations for what we already believe but maybe couldn't say eloquently. It's great for theists because I'm not sure how a reasonable person can read it and not come out an atheist without a good amount of self-delusion.
I've tried to read The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, I've tried to read God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and I've tried to read Atheism: A Reader. I got about halfway through the last and only a few pages into the others. I had turned my attention to books about science and math, which are essentially books about atheism when you get down to it and also have the benefit of making me more informed about topics. Then Why Are You Atheists So Angry? came out, I was heading to the Reason Rally and I decided to pick it up to read while on vacation.
This is the atheist book I've been wanting to read.
It's the sort of book that has left me pointing at nothing and shouting "Yes! Yes! Exactly!" Wanting to run to my religious friends and show it to them and ask how they can possibly believe.
It starts with the "litany of rage," enumerating all the reasons why atheists -- and anyone with a conscience -- should be angry. Then Greta Christina calmly and methodically shows why anyone saying "Yes, but I'm fine because-" is, frankly, full of shit.
This book is great for atheists because it gives well reasoned explanations for what we already believe but maybe couldn't say eloquently. It's great for theists because I'm not sure how a reasonable person can read it and not come out an atheist without a good amount of self-delusion.
Read
June 12, 2020I am not an angry atheist. I am an atheist who has a great deal of respect for others’ practices and beliefs, provided they don’t expect me to share them. I’ve seen the solace that religion can provide, but I’ve also seen the hurt that has been caused in the name of religion. Like anything, it has many points, good and bad and many arguments can be made for and against. I am not here to fight my corner, for one very good reason: my corner is my own. I won’t try to extend it to encroach on yours or drag you kicking and screaming into mine. I feel it is important to make this distinction very clear: I am not anti-religious. Rather, I am anti-intolerance.
The reason I have to make that so clear is that I don’t want this to be a review that really just provides a soapbox for an anti-religion rant. I don’t care what faith anyone follows as long as they don’t hurt others – physically or mentally – in its name. Here’s the kicker: I would passionately and ardently argue that this applies to atheists too.
And there, I think, lies the source of my discontent about this book. It made many pro-atheism points, some of which had been fundamental in my own decisions about God and, as it was the religion I was most exposed to, Christianity. However, in the defence of an atheistic standpoint, it also made many anti-religion points. Well, that’s fair enough. I’m not opposed to debate, where it is sensible, productive and courteous. That said I am fiercely opposed to the idea of one person trying to convert another.
Perhaps it’s fair to say that my desire for tolerance rates more highly with me than my desire to proclaim my faith, or lack of. Therefore, when Greta Christina began to discuss “atheistic activism” I became incredibly uncomfortable. I am happy to explain to anyone why I don’t follow a faith and may be passionate about my reasons. There is a huge difference, however, between being passionate about something you believe in and passionately insisting it is the only thing anyone should believe in. So when Christina talks about activism, I feel profoundly uneasy. Isn’t that just another form of judgement?
The truth is, whether we judge someone based on their skin colour, language, gender, sexuality or religion, we demonstrate intolerance. The choice is whether you keep your views private and remain passively intolerant or if you take them out into the world. To me, the activism Christina advocates is just another form of active intolerance.
So, are we atheists angry? Some are, I’m sure. I do get a little angry when people make assumptions about me because of my lack of faith. My lack of religion has not robbed me of a moral compass or a sense of kindness. I also find it frustrating that when we share our reasons – so often based on logic and science – we are accused of being angry. I guess it does make you a little defensive. But am I angry? No. As I said, I am not anti-religion. To be an angry atheist would just demonstrate the active intolerance that irks me so much.
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins was a well reasoned book. There was a fair amount of passionate rhetoric and, yes, some anger. His anger was largely aimed at those who have lampooned him or those who have used religion as a basis to commit atrocious deeds. Yet, despite this anger, the book was a stunningly crafted argument about the reason he has taken his stance. I suppose you could argue that publishing that was a form of activism but I don’t believe so, any more than publishing the Bible is, or the Koran. When compared to Dawkins’ book Why Are You Atheists So Angry? really does come across as an aggressive rant. Good points are made but the book does little to denude the idea that atheists are foaming at the mouth in rabid fury.
Recently, someone asked me if I recited the prayers and sang the hymns for a church service, such as a wedding or christening. I replied that I did and was asked if it made me feel like a hypocrite. My answer was succinct. I don’t believe but that doesn’t stop me respecting the feelings of those who do. In times of love or sorrow, compassion binds us all. That isn’t unique to religion or atheism. We can always choose tolerance.
All in all, an interesting book that I’m glad to have read. Though I would probably recommend it to other atheists, I doubt I would spread my recommendations any wider. Thought-provoking books are always a good find. Books that incite us to try and change the beliefs of our friends and neighbours? A step towards intolerance…
The reason I have to make that so clear is that I don’t want this to be a review that really just provides a soapbox for an anti-religion rant. I don’t care what faith anyone follows as long as they don’t hurt others – physically or mentally – in its name. Here’s the kicker: I would passionately and ardently argue that this applies to atheists too.
And there, I think, lies the source of my discontent about this book. It made many pro-atheism points, some of which had been fundamental in my own decisions about God and, as it was the religion I was most exposed to, Christianity. However, in the defence of an atheistic standpoint, it also made many anti-religion points. Well, that’s fair enough. I’m not opposed to debate, where it is sensible, productive and courteous. That said I am fiercely opposed to the idea of one person trying to convert another.
Perhaps it’s fair to say that my desire for tolerance rates more highly with me than my desire to proclaim my faith, or lack of. Therefore, when Greta Christina began to discuss “atheistic activism” I became incredibly uncomfortable. I am happy to explain to anyone why I don’t follow a faith and may be passionate about my reasons. There is a huge difference, however, between being passionate about something you believe in and passionately insisting it is the only thing anyone should believe in. So when Christina talks about activism, I feel profoundly uneasy. Isn’t that just another form of judgement?
The truth is, whether we judge someone based on their skin colour, language, gender, sexuality or religion, we demonstrate intolerance. The choice is whether you keep your views private and remain passively intolerant or if you take them out into the world. To me, the activism Christina advocates is just another form of active intolerance.
So, are we atheists angry? Some are, I’m sure. I do get a little angry when people make assumptions about me because of my lack of faith. My lack of religion has not robbed me of a moral compass or a sense of kindness. I also find it frustrating that when we share our reasons – so often based on logic and science – we are accused of being angry. I guess it does make you a little defensive. But am I angry? No. As I said, I am not anti-religion. To be an angry atheist would just demonstrate the active intolerance that irks me so much.
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins was a well reasoned book. There was a fair amount of passionate rhetoric and, yes, some anger. His anger was largely aimed at those who have lampooned him or those who have used religion as a basis to commit atrocious deeds. Yet, despite this anger, the book was a stunningly crafted argument about the reason he has taken his stance. I suppose you could argue that publishing that was a form of activism but I don’t believe so, any more than publishing the Bible is, or the Koran. When compared to Dawkins’ book Why Are You Atheists So Angry? really does come across as an aggressive rant. Good points are made but the book does little to denude the idea that atheists are foaming at the mouth in rabid fury.
Recently, someone asked me if I recited the prayers and sang the hymns for a church service, such as a wedding or christening. I replied that I did and was asked if it made me feel like a hypocrite. My answer was succinct. I don’t believe but that doesn’t stop me respecting the feelings of those who do. In times of love or sorrow, compassion binds us all. That isn’t unique to religion or atheism. We can always choose tolerance.
All in all, an interesting book that I’m glad to have read. Though I would probably recommend it to other atheists, I doubt I would spread my recommendations any wider. Thought-provoking books are always a good find. Books that incite us to try and change the beliefs of our friends and neighbours? A step towards intolerance…
May 16, 2012
If you just want the critics of religion to shut up, you should read this book and find out why that isn't going to happen. Atheists are angry and out and fed-up with with the effects of religion. This book will explain with clarity and brevity, why.
This book is a clear, straight-speaking and powerful treatise of atheist concerns, and yes, anger.
Last week I met a perfectly lovely young mother whose 12-yr old in Christian school was struggling to grasp "flood geology." Teaching an innocent child 'flood geology' is child abuse - and it pisses me off. I wonder what classes come after flood geology?..... alchemy .... stork theory?
This book is a clear, straight-speaking and powerful treatise of atheist concerns, and yes, anger.
Last week I met a perfectly lovely young mother whose 12-yr old in Christian school was struggling to grasp "flood geology." Teaching an innocent child 'flood geology' is child abuse - and it pisses me off. I wonder what classes come after flood geology?..... alchemy .... stork theory?
March 23, 2012
Why Are You Atheists So Angry?: 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless by Greta Christina
"Why Are You Atheists So Angry?" is a book that had to be written. It's the inspirational, outspoken, thought-provoking, grounded on reality book that makes you proud to be an atheist. Iconic voice of the atheist movement and widely-read blogger Greta Christina provides a much needed book in a growing movement that is grounded on reason and evidence. In this exciting book, Christina replies directly and so powerfully to questions presented to her by believers. Her responses are direct, compelling and ultimately persuasive. A real treat and a much needed resource for all those who care about their beliefs being truthful. This 272 KB book is composed of the following fifteen chapters: 1. Why Are You Atheists So Angry?, 2. Some Answers to the Questions I know I'll Get Asked, 3. Why This UIs Religion's Fault, 4. Yes, This Means You: Moderate and Progressive Religion, 5. Yes, This Means You: New Age Religion, 6. Yes, This Means You: "Spiritual But Not Religious", 7. Yes, This Means You: Ecumenicalism and Interfaith, 8. The Top Ten Reasons I Don't Believe In God, 9. Why "Religion Is Useful" Is a Terrible Argument - The Santa Delusion, 10. What Do You Want, Anyway? One Atheist's Mission Statement, 11. Is Atheism Activism Valid?, 12. Is Atheism Activism Effective? 13. On Other People's Anger and Compassion, 14. What Now? and 15. Resources.
Positives:
1. Anger has never been so eloquent. A well-reasoned book grounded on reality and accessible to all.
2. A thought-provoking, reason-grounded rant of evidence-based proportions.
3. An outspoken yet respectable tone throughout. A feat on its own.
4. Christina is able to put in words what many of us have trouble to put in thoughts.
5. Fascinating questions and profound yet intelligible answers!
6. I can finally embrace my anger with newfound confidence. A welcomed indelible mark of wisdom, thank you!
7. I love unique voices in the atheist movement, and it's refreshing to have a female voice!
8. The Litany of Rage! That alone is worth the price of this book. Many will be familiar with many of the points, some are new but all are well stated. Excellent!
9. The importance and necessity of anger.
10. One of the most important points of this book, "why religion sucks and why so many atheist are pissed off about it". Amen, strike that, I concur.
11. So many thought-provoking and intellectual treats, "it makes me feel more compassion for religious people -- and more anger about religion".
12. In support of the First Amendment!
13. The importance of coming out.
14. God as a hypothesis. Interesting stuff.
15. Understanding religion: the claims, the doctrines, the armor.
16. The problems with religion.
17. Same-sex marriage.
18. Great quote, thoughts throughout, "there's an equally important way that woo can do harm. And that's that it leads people away from valuing reason, and evidence, and reality. Woo, like every other religious or spiritual belief, ultimately prioritizes faith over reason; personal experience over external evidence".
19. Some of the best heartfelt rants I've ever read, "But it's disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst, to say that criticism of other religious beliefs is inherently bigoted and offensive...and then make an exception for beliefs that are opposed to your own". That's what she said.
20. Religious ecumenicalism...a callous disregard for the truth. Can I hear an Amen?? Never mind.
21. A foundation for reason, "Do you care whether the things you believe are true?"
22. I really enjoyed the Top Ten Reasons I don't Believe in God. David Letterman take note.
23. In defense of the scientific method.
24. Debunking the soul...always a personal favorite.
25. The lack of solid evidence for God's existence...oh my Science.
26. A total destruction of the argument for utility.
27. One of the few authors that I can say that I agree on practically every point, "I don't want religion ended by force. I want it ended by --persuasion". Organic atheism.
28. Facts, "The fact that religion is unfalsifiable doesn't mean we have to accept it as reasonable possibility. It means the exact opposite. It means we should reject it wholesale, on that basis alone."
29. The problem with religious evangelism.
30. One of the most compelling arguments why the defense of reason, evidence, atheism is needed and necessary.
31. Why atheists are angry?!! The best book I've ever read that addresses the subject of this book.
32. Great links and an invaluable resource chapter, thank you!!
33. A treat to read from beginning to end.
Negatives:
1. Ok, I only have one bone to pick with Greta...why wasn't Alan Turing included in the Litany of Rage?? Alan Turing was a hero, the father of modern computer science, whose work was instrumental in breaking the wartime Enigma codes, a genius if there ever was one and whose only "crime" was being gay and was ultimately forced to castration and ultimately committed suicide. That's how they treated a World War hero in England...it's so infuriating. I hope you agree.
2. If you are expecting an in-depth dissection of religious beliefs the author provides references. This is not that kind of book.
3. It felt more like an appetizer than the main course, but it was still delicious nonetheless and left you wanting for more.
Overall, I loved this brief book. Greta Christina gets it and knows how to convey her message loudly and lucidly. It doesn't matter how many books I read about any given topic a good author is always able to leave an indelible mark of wisdom. Greta Christina in few words was able to accomplish that and then some. I can for one embrace my anger with a newfound confidence that I didn't have before. My worldview is stronger and I have obtained a new wind of inspiration to spread the word of reason. I want to thank Greta for being such a wonderful voice in a community that needs heroes. I can't recommend this inspirational book enough, I highly recommend it!
Further suggestions: "Society Without God" by Phil Zuckerman, "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Why I Became an Atheist” by John Loftus, “Why I’m Not a Christian” by Richard Carrier, “Man Made God” by Barbara G. Walker, “The Invention of the Jewish People” by Shlomo Sand, "Doubt: A History" by Jennifer Hecht, “The Portable Atheist” by Christopher Hitchens, “Godless” by Dan Barker, “Christian No More” by Jeffrey Mark, “50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God" by Guy P. Harrison, "Freethinkers" by Susan Jacoby, "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger, "Faith Healers" by James Randi, "The Atheist Camel Rants" by Bart Centre, "Moral Combat" by Sikivu Hutchinson, "Bible Thumper to Atheist" by Tom Crawford.
"Why Are You Atheists So Angry?" is a book that had to be written. It's the inspirational, outspoken, thought-provoking, grounded on reality book that makes you proud to be an atheist. Iconic voice of the atheist movement and widely-read blogger Greta Christina provides a much needed book in a growing movement that is grounded on reason and evidence. In this exciting book, Christina replies directly and so powerfully to questions presented to her by believers. Her responses are direct, compelling and ultimately persuasive. A real treat and a much needed resource for all those who care about their beliefs being truthful. This 272 KB book is composed of the following fifteen chapters: 1. Why Are You Atheists So Angry?, 2. Some Answers to the Questions I know I'll Get Asked, 3. Why This UIs Religion's Fault, 4. Yes, This Means You: Moderate and Progressive Religion, 5. Yes, This Means You: New Age Religion, 6. Yes, This Means You: "Spiritual But Not Religious", 7. Yes, This Means You: Ecumenicalism and Interfaith, 8. The Top Ten Reasons I Don't Believe In God, 9. Why "Religion Is Useful" Is a Terrible Argument - The Santa Delusion, 10. What Do You Want, Anyway? One Atheist's Mission Statement, 11. Is Atheism Activism Valid?, 12. Is Atheism Activism Effective? 13. On Other People's Anger and Compassion, 14. What Now? and 15. Resources.
Positives:
1. Anger has never been so eloquent. A well-reasoned book grounded on reality and accessible to all.
2. A thought-provoking, reason-grounded rant of evidence-based proportions.
3. An outspoken yet respectable tone throughout. A feat on its own.
4. Christina is able to put in words what many of us have trouble to put in thoughts.
5. Fascinating questions and profound yet intelligible answers!
6. I can finally embrace my anger with newfound confidence. A welcomed indelible mark of wisdom, thank you!
7. I love unique voices in the atheist movement, and it's refreshing to have a female voice!
8. The Litany of Rage! That alone is worth the price of this book. Many will be familiar with many of the points, some are new but all are well stated. Excellent!
9. The importance and necessity of anger.
10. One of the most important points of this book, "why religion sucks and why so many atheist are pissed off about it". Amen, strike that, I concur.
11. So many thought-provoking and intellectual treats, "it makes me feel more compassion for religious people -- and more anger about religion".
12. In support of the First Amendment!
13. The importance of coming out.
14. God as a hypothesis. Interesting stuff.
15. Understanding religion: the claims, the doctrines, the armor.
16. The problems with religion.
17. Same-sex marriage.
18. Great quote, thoughts throughout, "there's an equally important way that woo can do harm. And that's that it leads people away from valuing reason, and evidence, and reality. Woo, like every other religious or spiritual belief, ultimately prioritizes faith over reason; personal experience over external evidence".
19. Some of the best heartfelt rants I've ever read, "But it's disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst, to say that criticism of other religious beliefs is inherently bigoted and offensive...and then make an exception for beliefs that are opposed to your own". That's what she said.
20. Religious ecumenicalism...a callous disregard for the truth. Can I hear an Amen?? Never mind.
21. A foundation for reason, "Do you care whether the things you believe are true?"
22. I really enjoyed the Top Ten Reasons I don't Believe in God. David Letterman take note.
23. In defense of the scientific method.
24. Debunking the soul...always a personal favorite.
25. The lack of solid evidence for God's existence...oh my Science.
26. A total destruction of the argument for utility.
27. One of the few authors that I can say that I agree on practically every point, "I don't want religion ended by force. I want it ended by --persuasion". Organic atheism.
28. Facts, "The fact that religion is unfalsifiable doesn't mean we have to accept it as reasonable possibility. It means the exact opposite. It means we should reject it wholesale, on that basis alone."
29. The problem with religious evangelism.
30. One of the most compelling arguments why the defense of reason, evidence, atheism is needed and necessary.
31. Why atheists are angry?!! The best book I've ever read that addresses the subject of this book.
32. Great links and an invaluable resource chapter, thank you!!
33. A treat to read from beginning to end.
Negatives:
1. Ok, I only have one bone to pick with Greta...why wasn't Alan Turing included in the Litany of Rage?? Alan Turing was a hero, the father of modern computer science, whose work was instrumental in breaking the wartime Enigma codes, a genius if there ever was one and whose only "crime" was being gay and was ultimately forced to castration and ultimately committed suicide. That's how they treated a World War hero in England...it's so infuriating. I hope you agree.
2. If you are expecting an in-depth dissection of religious beliefs the author provides references. This is not that kind of book.
3. It felt more like an appetizer than the main course, but it was still delicious nonetheless and left you wanting for more.
Overall, I loved this brief book. Greta Christina gets it and knows how to convey her message loudly and lucidly. It doesn't matter how many books I read about any given topic a good author is always able to leave an indelible mark of wisdom. Greta Christina in few words was able to accomplish that and then some. I can for one embrace my anger with a newfound confidence that I didn't have before. My worldview is stronger and I have obtained a new wind of inspiration to spread the word of reason. I want to thank Greta for being such a wonderful voice in a community that needs heroes. I can't recommend this inspirational book enough, I highly recommend it!
Further suggestions: "Society Without God" by Phil Zuckerman, "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Why I Became an Atheist” by John Loftus, “Why I’m Not a Christian” by Richard Carrier, “Man Made God” by Barbara G. Walker, “The Invention of the Jewish People” by Shlomo Sand, "Doubt: A History" by Jennifer Hecht, “The Portable Atheist” by Christopher Hitchens, “Godless” by Dan Barker, “Christian No More” by Jeffrey Mark, “50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God" by Guy P. Harrison, "Freethinkers" by Susan Jacoby, "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger, "Faith Healers" by James Randi, "The Atheist Camel Rants" by Bart Centre, "Moral Combat" by Sikivu Hutchinson, "Bible Thumper to Atheist" by Tom Crawford.
April 17, 2012
This is a fabulous book! I want all my "I'm not that type of Christian" friends to read it. I want all my "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" friends to read it. I want all my non-believing "Why do you have to tell people you are an atheist? Just leave it alone" friends to read it. It explains everything I have been trying to say, and in such a good way. There are going to be a lot of people getting this book from me, that's for sure.
August 19, 2013
This is a terrible book. Written in the style that is much more suited to ranty blog posts and responses to commenters, the entire book belongs on the internet, not in print. I identify as both a feminist and an atheist, but this is the sort of ranty feminist manifesto that makes me wish I was neither. The author is clearly intelligent, but the entire book comes off as petty and pointless. I suspect that the first chapter, in which the author lays out 99 reasons why she's pissed off, is the original blog post. Each of the chapters that follow strike me as responses she has developed in arguments on and offline. I didn't find many pearls of wisdom in this book, and I wouldn't recommend this to either atheists or those who are curious about why atheists feel the way they do. She certainly doesn't speak to me, and there are much more well-reasoned books out there.
July 12, 2012
I was only able to read about half of the book. I'm an atheist, but often don't like books about atheism for this very reason: I don't feel like I'm learning anything. You're telling me what I already know. I also tried to read this book from the perspective of a religious person, maybe how they'd perceive it and it seemed a bit like a long list of complaints. If I were a religious person, this book wouldn't make me empathize with the plight of the angry atheist. It'd probably make me go contribute to the woes of the angry atheist.
March 29, 2012
It's a well reasoned lucid account of atheists anger and why we have a right to be angry in the first place. If you are looking for a vitriolic tearing down religions and the "holy" texts this is not it, if you want a good argument against religion and why you should speak out this IS it.
Greta Christina is reasoned, impassioned and yes a little... no a lot angry but this is not an angry book, it's hopeful, compassionate and above all grounded in reason and lucidity.
Greta Christina is reasoned, impassioned and yes a little... no a lot angry but this is not an angry book, it's hopeful, compassionate and above all grounded in reason and lucidity.
April 8, 2012
This was a fast, well written read. I highly recommend it for, well, pretty much everyone, from atheists who just want something to help them with organizing their own thoughts to believers who think THEY don't believe those bad things, or THEIR brand of religion would never act like that. I especially recommend it for those people. The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is old. *Stares hard at some of my family members* :-)
I had never really read this lady's blog before, but I might have to start popping by more often. She has a great writing style, simple without being simplistic. The book in general is a reiteration of many other arguments made by atheist authors, many of them more eloquently stated, but it's nice to have them here as well. The best part of the book was the Litany of Rage. Honestly, if that doesn't piss you off, you are either heartless or stupid. She does a great job with linking to her sources as well, which I appreciate, and has a terrific list of other references and sources in the final chapter.
I had never really read this lady's blog before, but I might have to start popping by more often. She has a great writing style, simple without being simplistic. The book in general is a reiteration of many other arguments made by atheist authors, many of them more eloquently stated, but it's nice to have them here as well. The best part of the book was the Litany of Rage. Honestly, if that doesn't piss you off, you are either heartless or stupid. She does a great job with linking to her sources as well, which I appreciate, and has a terrific list of other references and sources in the final chapter.
December 29, 2014
I wish I liked this book better than I did. I am not one of those "why can't we all get along?" type of atheist, and I really enjoy direct criticism of religion. So, I was not displeased with this book because of the tone.
I was tolerant of its repetitiveness, but one problem that I had a more difficult time overlooking might not even be the author's problem, but the editors' and publisher's. In multiple places, the endnotes in my edition were mistaken. On pages 61, 73, and 128, the in-text citations do not match the reference section in the book. I think, in the cases of the mistakes on pages 61 and 73, the references were merely attributed to the wrong chapter. I could not figure out what happened in the case of the Dennett reference on page 128. Frankly, I don't feel like I should have to reformat this book in order to figure out what the proper citation is. With these consistent errors, I am not sure how trustworthy the other citations may be. Frankly, I'm not sure my time would be rewarded by trying to figure it out. For a better book on a similar topic, read John Allen Paulos' Irreligion.
I often find new reading material by looking into the references that a book makes if I find the argument interesting and I would like to learn more. The author of this book even lauds the virtues of rigorous thought, critical thinking, and the scientific method. One tenet this approach is looking into sources and examining arguments in greater detail. It is a bit ironic that this book failed at presenting a high standard of source citation so that readers might pursue these topics in greater detail.
I was tolerant of its repetitiveness, but one problem that I had a more difficult time overlooking might not even be the author's problem, but the editors' and publisher's. In multiple places, the endnotes in my edition were mistaken. On pages 61, 73, and 128, the in-text citations do not match the reference section in the book. I think, in the cases of the mistakes on pages 61 and 73, the references were merely attributed to the wrong chapter. I could not figure out what happened in the case of the Dennett reference on page 128. Frankly, I don't feel like I should have to reformat this book in order to figure out what the proper citation is. With these consistent errors, I am not sure how trustworthy the other citations may be. Frankly, I'm not sure my time would be rewarded by trying to figure it out. For a better book on a similar topic, read John Allen Paulos' Irreligion.
I often find new reading material by looking into the references that a book makes if I find the argument interesting and I would like to learn more. The author of this book even lauds the virtues of rigorous thought, critical thinking, and the scientific method. One tenet this approach is looking into sources and examining arguments in greater detail. It is a bit ironic that this book failed at presenting a high standard of source citation so that readers might pursue these topics in greater detail.
June 22, 2013
Not a lot new on the Atheist front from Greta Christina, although apparently it is at least OK to be pissed off, which is comforting. She does encourage the godless to take a more militant stance, but I'm left with the nagging sense that a long list of grievances against religious injustice is the easy way out of the argument.
The hard question and the one atheists and believers both need to figure out is why do people believe in the seemingly unreasonable? I love reason, but reason tells me that I'm missing something as to why the believer's blinders choose to limit the data. Believers work from a premise of evidence based on their subjective experience, rather than the objective. This is why belief so often fails the classic you can swing your fist as long as it doesn't hit my nose, because belief in a flawed subjective reality tends to hit on our collective objective real world and that pisses off Greta, along with the rest of us.
The hard question and the one atheists and believers both need to figure out is why do people believe in the seemingly unreasonable? I love reason, but reason tells me that I'm missing something as to why the believer's blinders choose to limit the data. Believers work from a premise of evidence based on their subjective experience, rather than the objective. This is why belief so often fails the classic you can swing your fist as long as it doesn't hit my nose, because belief in a flawed subjective reality tends to hit on our collective objective real world and that pisses off Greta, along with the rest of us.
March 30, 2012
This is a quick, direct and to-the-point book that not only summarizes the major theses of writers like Dawkins in far fewer words, but also illuminates the reasons behind the discomfort that many atheists have around religious believers. This discomfort (ok, "anger") goes beyond mere disagreement - I may disagree with a political opponent; I may even not like him or her very much; but unless the person is demented I can usually understand why they believe the things they do. As Greta Christina points out, the justifications given for faith are all on pretty shaky ground, and moreover, religion tends to get a special "free pass" that insulates it from general social criticism.
I recently read Karen Armstrong's The Case for God, and thought her strongest intellectual contribution was the distinction between religion as a belief system and religion as a living practice. She then argued that lots of us miss the point by arguing against "belief" - that the whole emphasis on "belief" is a relatively recent development, and can't we all get back to shared communal values and codes for living and not worry about all this divisive "belief" stuff. Greta Christina pretty much tackles this head on and argues, "yeah, if the world really worked that way - where we could talk and debate about codes of living and ways of being and all that - we'd all get along fine." But society - in particular American society - doesn't work that way. Read her first chapter on the "99 reasons" for anger, and see if you come away thinking that religion - as currently practiced in the world - is a benign force that should be left alone to pursue its ends.
In short, I'd recommend this book to anybody who is interested in the Great Debate over gods, religion, atheism, skepticism, the role of the activist in society... It's an easy read, Greta is an engaging writer, and there is very little wasted text here.
I recently read Karen Armstrong's The Case for God, and thought her strongest intellectual contribution was the distinction between religion as a belief system and religion as a living practice. She then argued that lots of us miss the point by arguing against "belief" - that the whole emphasis on "belief" is a relatively recent development, and can't we all get back to shared communal values and codes for living and not worry about all this divisive "belief" stuff. Greta Christina pretty much tackles this head on and argues, "yeah, if the world really worked that way - where we could talk and debate about codes of living and ways of being and all that - we'd all get along fine." But society - in particular American society - doesn't work that way. Read her first chapter on the "99 reasons" for anger, and see if you come away thinking that religion - as currently practiced in the world - is a benign force that should be left alone to pursue its ends.
In short, I'd recommend this book to anybody who is interested in the Great Debate over gods, religion, atheism, skepticism, the role of the activist in society... It's an easy read, Greta is an engaging writer, and there is very little wasted text here.
August 21, 2014
Growing up, I went to Sunday school and church and as a kid found the Old Testament stories as fanciful and entertaining as any fairy tale. By the the time I was about 11 or so I realized how poorly written and contradictory the Bible was; the "loving" God that regularly tortures and kills, the scientific impossibilities and historic inaccuracies.
With critical thinking, any faith I once had evaporated away, and I continue to be puzzled by otherwise intelligent people defending an institution that makes no logical sense and does more harm than good. People who still say "It's true because I believe it to be true.", much like a schizophrenic's delusions.
Greta Christina posits the arguments for religion, and then methodically knocks them down, one by one, like so many bowling pins. Not just the major religions of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc..., but Scientology, Wicca and a variety of New Age nonsense.
Ms. Christina gives voice to all of the arguments against religion and God that many of have thought but were unable to state so succinctly. Like Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris etc... She makes me proud to be counted among the free thinkers...the atheists.
With critical thinking, any faith I once had evaporated away, and I continue to be puzzled by otherwise intelligent people defending an institution that makes no logical sense and does more harm than good. People who still say "It's true because I believe it to be true.", much like a schizophrenic's delusions.
Greta Christina posits the arguments for religion, and then methodically knocks them down, one by one, like so many bowling pins. Not just the major religions of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc..., but Scientology, Wicca and a variety of New Age nonsense.
Ms. Christina gives voice to all of the arguments against religion and God that many of have thought but were unable to state so succinctly. Like Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris etc... She makes me proud to be counted among the free thinkers...the atheists.
June 25, 2012
A fairly informal, accessible and well argued book presenting the downsides of religion (primarily American Christianity but not to the exclusion of other religions), the arguments from atheism which challenge religion. If you wish to discuss religion with someone on rational, scientific (in the sense of naturalistic, rather than 'sciency') and humanistic terms, then this book is a great primer.
I enjoyed reading the informal prose style (whether this is deliberate or because it's perhaps written in Christina's blogging style I am unsure) which not only makes the book readable and throws up very human responses ("I'm angry ... because the Catholic Church convinced them that using condoms makes Baby Jesus cry.") but also presents well thought through and repeatable arguments both in favour of atheism and opposing religious ... well pap for want of a better word.
In addition, the resources - an extensive list of international organisations, websites, blogs and a good bibliography - are a valuable addition to the end of the book.
I enjoyed reading the informal prose style (whether this is deliberate or because it's perhaps written in Christina's blogging style I am unsure) which not only makes the book readable and throws up very human responses ("I'm angry ... because the Catholic Church convinced them that using condoms makes Baby Jesus cry.") but also presents well thought through and repeatable arguments both in favour of atheism and opposing religious ... well pap for want of a better word.
In addition, the resources - an extensive list of international organisations, websites, blogs and a good bibliography - are a valuable addition to the end of the book.
March 28, 2012
LOVED IT! So much more than just a rant. Though, those are fun, too. Greta Christina took great pains to explain why she thinks the way she does. She articulates so well what many of us atheists only wish we had the words to say. She marshals her arguments with wit and science and deep thinking. There is even an entire chapter devoted to how atheists can help the movement - from simply (not that it is always "simple"!) coming out and being a good example of a good person to getting involved in politics and community. She also includes a large list of resources, from online bloggers to real-world groups.
This book is not just for atheists, though. This book is just as much for religious people, of every stripe. From fundamentalist Christian to ecumenical believers to moderates and New Agers. This book explains exactly why atheists are angry in an eminently readable way.
This book is not just for atheists, though. This book is just as much for religious people, of every stripe. From fundamentalist Christian to ecumenical believers to moderates and New Agers. This book explains exactly why atheists are angry in an eminently readable way.
July 23, 2016
This is a really good, light, conversational overview of why atheists are angry, and why we are justified in that anger. It does not go into deep philosophical arguments, and seems to be more aimed at the general public. Greta Christina does a good job of explaining her arguments in simple, clear language. This will probably not satisfy long-time atheists, since the arguments are focused on the basics, but I think it fills a needed gap in the literature.
She does a nice job of addressing one of the worst that believers like to fling out "atheism is just another religion, and just as faith-based" This one is a particular pet-peeve of mine, not just because it is wrong, but because it's almost always done with such a smug attitude.
She does a nice job of addressing one of the worst that believers like to fling out "atheism is just another religion, and just as faith-based" This one is a particular pet-peeve of mine, not just because it is wrong, but because it's almost always done with such a smug attitude.
August 1, 2019
Clear, concise, unwavering, unflinching and fully accessible--this is one of the best written books about what atheism actually is and what's behind it for most of us. Well-argued but not hateful or cruel toward believers. A delight.
September 20, 2017
As a former atheist myself, little of what was written in this book surprised me. I already knew most of these arguments and the mindset behind them, the focus on Reason and Rationality with a capital R, the even bigger focus on the scientific method whether it's applicable or not, and so on. Ironically, while thinking made me an atheist when I was an agnostic before, thinking harder made me an agnostic again with a leaning towards Christianity. I'll come to a few reasons in the course of this review, but as this is about the book and not me, I will mostly be talking about the book.
Why not start at the same place Christina started: The delightful list of 99 things that piss her off. I think that was a terrible way to start off the book. At every fifth point, an objection popped in my head "What has that got to do with religion?" "How is that a matter of religion and not custom?" "Should we really attribute all of this to religion in general and not to particular religions?" Sometimes, Christina anticipated these objections, but often, she then went on to refer me to later parts of the book instead of refuting them on the spot. After reason number 20, she has already made her point and hooked the reader, but then she goes on and on and on about mutilated children, bombings, terror attacks, assassinations of cartoonists, sexual abuse and other crimes.
If there's something I learned from studying criminal law, it's that for a criminal conviction, you need more than just an accused and some horrible act. You need to show how they are related, how it was the accused in particular who committed this act and how he can be held responsible. That's what the doctrine of proximate cause is for, for example. When you want to convince me that communism, or capitalism, or religion, or atheism are the cause of something horrible, I want something to link ideology and act, too. If you give me too many murders and rapes and thefts and too little to attribute them, then I'll feel like you're trying to stir my raw emotions, not any emotions guided by reason. There's a difference between righteous anger and just being fucking pissed, a distinction that she seems to be aware of except in the beginning of the book.
Christina didn't use my terminology, of course, but she did promise in her own words to deliver on the attribution. And she did. Religion, she says, is characterized by the fact that it's not open to what she calls reality checks. As the idea of , she names ideas that aren't religious and that can be disproven when they clash with reality. Communism or the idea of the free market, for example. I'm glad she brought these two up because they help me make my case. They show perfectly just how stuck she is in the empiricist mindset. An empirical method doesn't work properly in the social sciences, however. Human Action, Economic Science and the Austrian Method and The Counter-Revolution of Science all make this case very convincingly. That communism doesn't work is not proven by the historical record, but by a priori reasoning. Without it, any communist could come up and show us his new, totally improved economic system that fixes all the errors of the USSR and Red China, and we couldn't argue against him. It's not because communism hasn't worked in the past that we can say it's a failure, but because we figured out why it didn't work. It didn't fail a reality check as she seems to use that term, it failed an a priori inquiry on whether it could ever work.
With religions, it's often similar. Yes, some claims are testable, like the age of the universe or With prayer, that already becomes doubtful. Many Christians don't equate prayers with writing wish lists to God, but even the ones that do something like that don't think he's an automatism. Some will tell you that God accounts for free will, for example, and that that's why he won't take all the consequences of our bad choices from us. Others will tell you that he cares for you so much that he won't just grant any wish if that would just harm you in the long-term. Both can also be true. That's not a cop out, it's a traditional position that many Christians sincerely hold even before they're faced with any evidence that God doesn't answer all prayers. The way you argue against that is with a priori reasoning, not by setting up a study to measure the efficacy of prayer. With God's existence, it's similar. There's a priori arguments put forth by scholars and philosophers for why he must exist. They will laugh at your face when you point out that you cannot empirically observe him, and rightly so. Engage them on a philosophical level if you want to prove them wrong. When they insist that you're wrong even after you have defeated them, then you can conclude that they're
Not just that the author is oblivious to rationalist epistemics, she's also wrong on the facts, and her interpretations of history are extremely flawed. She claims that Hitler was a Christian, for example, and that the crimes of the Nazis were religiously motivated. It's true that Hitler defended Christianity in some speeches, most notably in 1922. It's also true that he defended both free enterprise and socialism in speeches. Should we conclude from this that he hated and loved capitalism at the same time, or that we was just lying to the public? (Reminder: He was a politician. At the best of times, they lie.) It's better to look at his private conversations, and then we'll see that he was, in fact, not a believer, and was quite hostile to Christianity at times, going so far as to call Christianity the "propotype of bolshevism". That the Nazis didn't kill the jews for religious reasons should go without mention. Their primary reasons always were racialist and biological, religious reasons were at best post hoc rationalizations. Otherwise, why would they have hunted down jews that weren't practicing? Why would they have sterilized jews instead of adopting jewish children, like they did with children from other cultures as part of the Lebensborn Program? It was because they saw the jews as tainted on a biological level. They saw them as pests, on the same level as insects, and that constantly shone through in their rhetoric.
And there's more. That there is no evidence for the historical Jesus, for example, is another of her claims. Yet we have not only the Gospels, we also have accounts from chroniclers that were hostile to Christianity, some of whom even called him a sorcerer. Her narrative of the War of Independence as a popular uprising, or of the French Revolution as a beneficial event count as flawed interpretations to me even if they were only mentioned in passing. She also shows an ignorance of how the Bible was compiled when she counts the instances where hell was invoked, when the original Bible used the words tartarus, gehenna, hades and sheol in its place. Translators lumped all these concepts together and that's why Jesus seems fixated on hell. How can you have a major in religion, as Greta Christina does, and not know that? She also invokes the dichotomy of fatih and reason, when that was a particular invention of the Reformation. Catholic theology doesn't assume a conflict between the two, and many older religions just plain wouldn't have thought this dichotomy up. Socrates tried to prove the existence of the soul with logical reasoning, which shows that to him, the things beyond this world are not beyond inquiry. Then there's some more primitive religions and cultures that had no real concept of rational inquiry. How then could their faith conflict with their reason, when that reason was seriously underdeveloped? It's true that all humans are endowed with reason, but devising a coherent system of logic and a methodology for testing claims is not a trivial task and many culltures never did it. (To say that religion held reason back is even more ridiculous when we keep that in mind, by the way.) I'm also puzzled that she holds religion responsible for so many horrible things but never once stops to consider the case of the USSR. Twenty million people dead as a lower count, and many of them died because they had a religion, yet this doesn't make her think? I don't want to speculate openly on what possible response she would give, I just want to say that I see no possibility of her defeating this argument without at least weakening her overall case.
Another problem with this book is that her standards of evidence are all over the place. She discards the argument from popularity, and rightly so, but before she does that, she claims that if there was a convincing argument for God's existence, it would "spread like wildfire". Because such a popular argument doesn't exst, we can assume that God doesn't exist. See the problem? You cannot hold that good arguments necessarly get popular and then discard popular arguments based on the notion that their popularity doesn't mean they're good. I'm also wondering how she can sincerely hold the position that scriptural interpretation is arbitrary, when we can also interpret ancient poems, stories, chronicles and so on. She also invokes the fact that there's no consensus on religious matters to prove that religions are wrong. Aside from the fact that all monotheistic communities agree that God created the universe and that he's immeasurably good and powerful, and that the judgement of good and bad people in the afterlife has an even longer tradition, this also doesn't prove anything. There's no consensus on lots of topics, and yet no one ever abstracted this standard and declared that everything on which there is no consensus must be non-existant. Clearly, that would be madness.
Now, to the good, of which there isn't a lot, but obviously enough for me not to give this book the worst rating. Some of her arguments are alright, even if she stretches them too far (they're usually spot-on against some Evangelicals), and many of the 99 things that make her freaking mad are terrible. She also seemed like a fairly nice person with some surprisingly good views thrown in here and there. She constantly stresses that she doesn't want to prohibit religion or violently coerce people to give it up, too, and she defends evangelism, at least in theory, because spreading the truth is a good thing and so religious proliferation would be good if religions were true. I can't argue with that logic at all. Then there is her very good view on discourse and argumentation, namely that you cannot change a persons mind within one conversation, you can only plant a seed that may or may not develop. It's also not only about the person you're talking to, it's about the audience of the discussion, too. They should take your arguments to heart and remember you as the reasonable person in the conversation. All very good and immensely valuable insights from her, but sadly, they cannot compensate for all the blunders.
If you're interested in Christian philosophy, not just in stuff that some Christians with no formal education in theology or philosophy say, check out Edward Feser, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, C.S. Lewis and Ralph McInerny. There's more, of course, but I'm only just beginning to explore this field. So far, I don't regret it.
Why not start at the same place Christina started: The delightful list of 99 things that piss her off. I think that was a terrible way to start off the book. At every fifth point, an objection popped in my head "What has that got to do with religion?" "How is that a matter of religion and not custom?" "Should we really attribute all of this to religion in general and not to particular religions?" Sometimes, Christina anticipated these objections, but often, she then went on to refer me to later parts of the book instead of refuting them on the spot. After reason number 20, she has already made her point and hooked the reader, but then she goes on and on and on about mutilated children, bombings, terror attacks, assassinations of cartoonists, sexual abuse and other crimes.
If there's something I learned from studying criminal law, it's that for a criminal conviction, you need more than just an accused and some horrible act. You need to show how they are related, how it was the accused in particular who committed this act and how he can be held responsible. That's what the doctrine of proximate cause is for, for example. When you want to convince me that communism, or capitalism, or religion, or atheism are the cause of something horrible, I want something to link ideology and act, too. If you give me too many murders and rapes and thefts and too little to attribute them, then I'll feel like you're trying to stir my raw emotions, not any emotions guided by reason. There's a difference between righteous anger and just being fucking pissed, a distinction that she seems to be aware of except in the beginning of the book.
Christina didn't use my terminology, of course, but she did promise in her own words to deliver on the attribution. And she did. Religion, she says, is characterized by the fact that it's not open to what she calls reality checks. As the idea of , she names ideas that aren't religious and that can be disproven when they clash with reality. Communism or the idea of the free market, for example. I'm glad she brought these two up because they help me make my case. They show perfectly just how stuck she is in the empiricist mindset. An empirical method doesn't work properly in the social sciences, however. Human Action, Economic Science and the Austrian Method and The Counter-Revolution of Science all make this case very convincingly. That communism doesn't work is not proven by the historical record, but by a priori reasoning. Without it, any communist could come up and show us his new, totally improved economic system that fixes all the errors of the USSR and Red China, and we couldn't argue against him. It's not because communism hasn't worked in the past that we can say it's a failure, but because we figured out why it didn't work. It didn't fail a reality check as she seems to use that term, it failed an a priori inquiry on whether it could ever work.
With religions, it's often similar. Yes, some claims are testable, like the age of the universe or With prayer, that already becomes doubtful. Many Christians don't equate prayers with writing wish lists to God, but even the ones that do something like that don't think he's an automatism. Some will tell you that God accounts for free will, for example, and that that's why he won't take all the consequences of our bad choices from us. Others will tell you that he cares for you so much that he won't just grant any wish if that would just harm you in the long-term. Both can also be true. That's not a cop out, it's a traditional position that many Christians sincerely hold even before they're faced with any evidence that God doesn't answer all prayers. The way you argue against that is with a priori reasoning, not by setting up a study to measure the efficacy of prayer. With God's existence, it's similar. There's a priori arguments put forth by scholars and philosophers for why he must exist. They will laugh at your face when you point out that you cannot empirically observe him, and rightly so. Engage them on a philosophical level if you want to prove them wrong. When they insist that you're wrong even after you have defeated them, then you can conclude that they're
Not just that the author is oblivious to rationalist epistemics, she's also wrong on the facts, and her interpretations of history are extremely flawed. She claims that Hitler was a Christian, for example, and that the crimes of the Nazis were religiously motivated. It's true that Hitler defended Christianity in some speeches, most notably in 1922. It's also true that he defended both free enterprise and socialism in speeches. Should we conclude from this that he hated and loved capitalism at the same time, or that we was just lying to the public? (Reminder: He was a politician. At the best of times, they lie.) It's better to look at his private conversations, and then we'll see that he was, in fact, not a believer, and was quite hostile to Christianity at times, going so far as to call Christianity the "propotype of bolshevism". That the Nazis didn't kill the jews for religious reasons should go without mention. Their primary reasons always were racialist and biological, religious reasons were at best post hoc rationalizations. Otherwise, why would they have hunted down jews that weren't practicing? Why would they have sterilized jews instead of adopting jewish children, like they did with children from other cultures as part of the Lebensborn Program? It was because they saw the jews as tainted on a biological level. They saw them as pests, on the same level as insects, and that constantly shone through in their rhetoric.
And there's more. That there is no evidence for the historical Jesus, for example, is another of her claims. Yet we have not only the Gospels, we also have accounts from chroniclers that were hostile to Christianity, some of whom even called him a sorcerer. Her narrative of the War of Independence as a popular uprising, or of the French Revolution as a beneficial event count as flawed interpretations to me even if they were only mentioned in passing. She also shows an ignorance of how the Bible was compiled when she counts the instances where hell was invoked, when the original Bible used the words tartarus, gehenna, hades and sheol in its place. Translators lumped all these concepts together and that's why Jesus seems fixated on hell. How can you have a major in religion, as Greta Christina does, and not know that? She also invokes the dichotomy of fatih and reason, when that was a particular invention of the Reformation. Catholic theology doesn't assume a conflict between the two, and many older religions just plain wouldn't have thought this dichotomy up. Socrates tried to prove the existence of the soul with logical reasoning, which shows that to him, the things beyond this world are not beyond inquiry. Then there's some more primitive religions and cultures that had no real concept of rational inquiry. How then could their faith conflict with their reason, when that reason was seriously underdeveloped? It's true that all humans are endowed with reason, but devising a coherent system of logic and a methodology for testing claims is not a trivial task and many culltures never did it. (To say that religion held reason back is even more ridiculous when we keep that in mind, by the way.) I'm also puzzled that she holds religion responsible for so many horrible things but never once stops to consider the case of the USSR. Twenty million people dead as a lower count, and many of them died because they had a religion, yet this doesn't make her think? I don't want to speculate openly on what possible response she would give, I just want to say that I see no possibility of her defeating this argument without at least weakening her overall case.
Another problem with this book is that her standards of evidence are all over the place. She discards the argument from popularity, and rightly so, but before she does that, she claims that if there was a convincing argument for God's existence, it would "spread like wildfire". Because such a popular argument doesn't exst, we can assume that God doesn't exist. See the problem? You cannot hold that good arguments necessarly get popular and then discard popular arguments based on the notion that their popularity doesn't mean they're good. I'm also wondering how she can sincerely hold the position that scriptural interpretation is arbitrary, when we can also interpret ancient poems, stories, chronicles and so on. She also invokes the fact that there's no consensus on religious matters to prove that religions are wrong. Aside from the fact that all monotheistic communities agree that God created the universe and that he's immeasurably good and powerful, and that the judgement of good and bad people in the afterlife has an even longer tradition, this also doesn't prove anything. There's no consensus on lots of topics, and yet no one ever abstracted this standard and declared that everything on which there is no consensus must be non-existant. Clearly, that would be madness.
Now, to the good, of which there isn't a lot, but obviously enough for me not to give this book the worst rating. Some of her arguments are alright, even if she stretches them too far (they're usually spot-on against some Evangelicals), and many of the 99 things that make her freaking mad are terrible. She also seemed like a fairly nice person with some surprisingly good views thrown in here and there. She constantly stresses that she doesn't want to prohibit religion or violently coerce people to give it up, too, and she defends evangelism, at least in theory, because spreading the truth is a good thing and so religious proliferation would be good if religions were true. I can't argue with that logic at all. Then there is her very good view on discourse and argumentation, namely that you cannot change a persons mind within one conversation, you can only plant a seed that may or may not develop. It's also not only about the person you're talking to, it's about the audience of the discussion, too. They should take your arguments to heart and remember you as the reasonable person in the conversation. All very good and immensely valuable insights from her, but sadly, they cannot compensate for all the blunders.
If you're interested in Christian philosophy, not just in stuff that some Christians with no formal education in theology or philosophy say, check out Edward Feser, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, C.S. Lewis and Ralph McInerny. There's more, of course, but I'm only just beginning to explore this field. So far, I don't regret it.
September 29, 2012
I'm not saying that religion should be outlawed; I'm just saying we'd all be better off without it. This could have been the sub-sub-title. And Christina is not just talking about organized religion, she actually has a chapter titled "Yes, This Means You: "Spiritual but Not Religious." So according to her, even being spiritual is harmful and makes her angry. Yes, you read that correctly- spirituality makes her angry.
And talk about repetition. And talk about repetition. Reality check! Let's just say there is an abundance of recycled arguments. The book would have been shorter, and more enjoyable, if she had labeled the arguments and wrote, "Insert position A here."
Something else that is completely lacking- footnotes and sources. Christina makes assertions such as, "Moderate religion is in the minority. The oppressive, intolerant, reality-denying forms of religion are far more common, and far better at perpetuating themselves," but then doesn't provide statistics to back her claim or her source of information. I'm not saying that the above is not accurate; I don't know if it is because I haven't looked it up. There's a reason God invented footnotes.
I would like to comment on her arguments, which did have a little affect on the rating. Christina frequently resorts to the same flawed logic- God doesn't exist because religion is messed up, diminishing, inconsistent, etc. And it amazes me how often this argument is used as if it holds any water. Newsflash- pointing out the inconsistencies in the Bible or the flaws of religion does not prove God does not exist. I am surprised that so few recognize this flawed logic. And since most of this book concentrates on religion and the Bible, it pretty much invalidates a good portion of her arguments against the existence of God. Religion and the existence of God are not interchangeable, yet that is exactly what Christina does. In all fairness, she is not the only one; It is still no excuse.
Then she tries to simplify things for those of us who are just too dense to understand her intellectual arguments, by making an analogy to Santa. It is one of the absolute worst analogies I have ever heard. In fact, it is the first time I have heard this argument and I understand why. It's embarrassingly awful.
To be fair, I guess I should comment on what I did like about Why Are You Atheists So Angry. I did enjoy the Project Runway line. I like that it is an equal opportunity complaint; even Buddhism is not safe. I like the long list of the resources and books at the end. I like the idea; it was a good one. And the thing I like most about this book is the following quote, which is also one of my favorite quotes of all time (thanks for that Christina, along with the laugh): "It’s one gigantic mutual admiration society." She's talking about atheism, right? I just couldn't resist.
Look, I'll be honest with you. I feel cheated. I wanted succinct, intelligent points. I wanted reasons for atheist anger, not whining. I was even interested in how she proposes atheists attempt to convert believers. I originally addressed this section but decided to just let it go. I do have one suggestion- instead of asking converts, maybe she should have tracked down some open minded true believers and asked them what would convince them. We are out here you know. What I felt I got was a book that should have been 100 pages and ended up with 80 pages of filler because the editor said it was too short. I would have preferred short.
I could go on and on, but when I add together the time I spent reading the book, making notations and writing this review, not only have I done this book justice, but I think I dedicated more time to it than it deserves. So I'll wind it up and get back to Hitchen's The Portable Atheist. Even though I think Christina botched the execution, she had a few really good points in Why Are You Atheists So Angry. So she gets a couple of stars for that, for the initial idea and for providing me with another quote to add to my list of all time favorites. Despite these two stars, I will recommend that readers continue to focus on Hitchens and Dawkins (I haven't read Harris yet) and pray that someone else covers this topic better.
2 out of 5 stars.
And talk about repetition. And talk about repetition. Reality check! Let's just say there is an abundance of recycled arguments. The book would have been shorter, and more enjoyable, if she had labeled the arguments and wrote, "Insert position A here."
Something else that is completely lacking- footnotes and sources. Christina makes assertions such as, "Moderate religion is in the minority. The oppressive, intolerant, reality-denying forms of religion are far more common, and far better at perpetuating themselves," but then doesn't provide statistics to back her claim or her source of information. I'm not saying that the above is not accurate; I don't know if it is because I haven't looked it up. There's a reason God invented footnotes.
I would like to comment on her arguments, which did have a little affect on the rating. Christina frequently resorts to the same flawed logic- God doesn't exist because religion is messed up, diminishing, inconsistent, etc. And it amazes me how often this argument is used as if it holds any water. Newsflash- pointing out the inconsistencies in the Bible or the flaws of religion does not prove God does not exist. I am surprised that so few recognize this flawed logic. And since most of this book concentrates on religion and the Bible, it pretty much invalidates a good portion of her arguments against the existence of God. Religion and the existence of God are not interchangeable, yet that is exactly what Christina does. In all fairness, she is not the only one; It is still no excuse.
Then she tries to simplify things for those of us who are just too dense to understand her intellectual arguments, by making an analogy to Santa. It is one of the absolute worst analogies I have ever heard. In fact, it is the first time I have heard this argument and I understand why. It's embarrassingly awful.
To be fair, I guess I should comment on what I did like about Why Are You Atheists So Angry. I did enjoy the Project Runway line. I like that it is an equal opportunity complaint; even Buddhism is not safe. I like the long list of the resources and books at the end. I like the idea; it was a good one. And the thing I like most about this book is the following quote, which is also one of my favorite quotes of all time (thanks for that Christina, along with the laugh): "It’s one gigantic mutual admiration society." She's talking about atheism, right? I just couldn't resist.
Look, I'll be honest with you. I feel cheated. I wanted succinct, intelligent points. I wanted reasons for atheist anger, not whining. I was even interested in how she proposes atheists attempt to convert believers. I originally addressed this section but decided to just let it go. I do have one suggestion- instead of asking converts, maybe she should have tracked down some open minded true believers and asked them what would convince them. We are out here you know. What I felt I got was a book that should have been 100 pages and ended up with 80 pages of filler because the editor said it was too short. I would have preferred short.
I could go on and on, but when I add together the time I spent reading the book, making notations and writing this review, not only have I done this book justice, but I think I dedicated more time to it than it deserves. So I'll wind it up and get back to Hitchen's The Portable Atheist. Even though I think Christina botched the execution, she had a few really good points in Why Are You Atheists So Angry. So she gets a couple of stars for that, for the initial idea and for providing me with another quote to add to my list of all time favorites. Despite these two stars, I will recommend that readers continue to focus on Hitchens and Dawkins (I haven't read Harris yet) and pray that someone else covers this topic better.
2 out of 5 stars.
March 29, 2015
I found this book in the library, and my curiosity made me pick it up. I have friends who are atheists as well as friends who are devout Christians. I fall into the latter.
If you are already an atheist or a serious doubter/questioner of religion, you will probably love this book. The author goes at it convincing the religious with the zeal of a roadside revivalist. She is completely convinced of her rightness and more than happy expounding why. She obviously is familiar with religion in some form. I suspect it may have been from childhood and somewhere along the way, for some reason she decided not to buy the program. There is a saying that a converted Catholic is more Catholic than the Pope. I see her falling into that category regarding atheism.
She begins with 99 reasons why she is angry with religion. Frankly, many of them are very legitimate. A few are exaggerated, or not completely honest or understood and designed to incite the reader. The language is designed to be inflammatory. Some of the issues she attributes to religion such as bullying, ostrasizing and threatening are power issues found world wide even in people who aren't religious. Worldwide, people who engage in the slave trade and selling young girls for prostitution or gun runners or drug smugglers are doing it for money not for reasons of conscience or because their religion is telling them to do so. People do whatever is most expedient, using even religion to get what they want. It can be usable tool.
She castigates all religion and finds something to prove her point in each one. All people, however, have gods. It may be formal religion/theology or it may be money, power, family, desires to achieve, politics or a hundred other ideas and situations that become our primary focus and goal in life.The author is very intelligent and verbal. Her god would appear to be her rationality/reality/logical thinking, and her goal its to deconvert from religion and convert as many as she can to atheism. She appears to feel that only rational thinking counts. Life, however, is full of emotional intelligences that she discounts.
Religion is about faith. Her faith is in her brain and rational intelligence. Not all things can be proved. I've been married for 47 years and although I could look at my husband's habits, education, family traits, education and his treatment of me during courtship, I gambled or by faith married him not knowing if it would be a positive experience. It was. In faith I bore and raised children hoping they would become responsible, kind adults who give more than they take. They have, but I have a number of friends who had the same goals, and it didn't work out that way. In faith and hope that their education qualified them to treat me, I have consulted physicians to help me stay/get well. In faith or trust I rely on former employers and the government to keep the promised they made me regarding income. Although all they people could disappoint me or take advantage of me, I still put my trust in them including a God whom I cannot see nor do I "hear" audibly as she so often suggests in the book.
I find it interesting that her chapter entitled"Is Atheist Activism Effective?" she encourages methods the religious have used for centuries if not longer to convert the "sinner." She would like the world to stamp out religion. It won't happen. People have tried over and over to accomplish this.
Religion/faith then goes underground only to reemerge at another time. We might have less formal religion, but there appears to be a
need in most humans for a god.
I'm glad she says she is happy and fulfilled. I also am happy and fulfilled as a believer.
If you are already an atheist or a serious doubter/questioner of religion, you will probably love this book. The author goes at it convincing the religious with the zeal of a roadside revivalist. She is completely convinced of her rightness and more than happy expounding why. She obviously is familiar with religion in some form. I suspect it may have been from childhood and somewhere along the way, for some reason she decided not to buy the program. There is a saying that a converted Catholic is more Catholic than the Pope. I see her falling into that category regarding atheism.
She begins with 99 reasons why she is angry with religion. Frankly, many of them are very legitimate. A few are exaggerated, or not completely honest or understood and designed to incite the reader. The language is designed to be inflammatory. Some of the issues she attributes to religion such as bullying, ostrasizing and threatening are power issues found world wide even in people who aren't religious. Worldwide, people who engage in the slave trade and selling young girls for prostitution or gun runners or drug smugglers are doing it for money not for reasons of conscience or because their religion is telling them to do so. People do whatever is most expedient, using even religion to get what they want. It can be usable tool.
She castigates all religion and finds something to prove her point in each one. All people, however, have gods. It may be formal religion/theology or it may be money, power, family, desires to achieve, politics or a hundred other ideas and situations that become our primary focus and goal in life.The author is very intelligent and verbal. Her god would appear to be her rationality/reality/logical thinking, and her goal its to deconvert from religion and convert as many as she can to atheism. She appears to feel that only rational thinking counts. Life, however, is full of emotional intelligences that she discounts.
Religion is about faith. Her faith is in her brain and rational intelligence. Not all things can be proved. I've been married for 47 years and although I could look at my husband's habits, education, family traits, education and his treatment of me during courtship, I gambled or by faith married him not knowing if it would be a positive experience. It was. In faith I bore and raised children hoping they would become responsible, kind adults who give more than they take. They have, but I have a number of friends who had the same goals, and it didn't work out that way. In faith and hope that their education qualified them to treat me, I have consulted physicians to help me stay/get well. In faith or trust I rely on former employers and the government to keep the promised they made me regarding income. Although all they people could disappoint me or take advantage of me, I still put my trust in them including a God whom I cannot see nor do I "hear" audibly as she so often suggests in the book.
I find it interesting that her chapter entitled"Is Atheist Activism Effective?" she encourages methods the religious have used for centuries if not longer to convert the "sinner." She would like the world to stamp out religion. It won't happen. People have tried over and over to accomplish this.
Religion/faith then goes underground only to reemerge at another time. We might have less formal religion, but there appears to be a
need in most humans for a god.
I'm glad she says she is happy and fulfilled. I also am happy and fulfilled as a believer.
March 18, 2014
File this review under "Atheist Blogger Writes a Book."
This is the third book of this sort I have read (the first two being "Drunk With Blood: God's Killings in the Bible" by Steve Wells, and "Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History" by Chris Rodda) and would rank it better than "Liars for Jesus" on readability but not as well-written as "Drunk with Blood."
Greta Christina has, for lack of a better term, a very aggressive writing style. This is a good thing for a book about being an angry atheist. However, aggressive writing only takes one so far and I strongly think she falters in the middle (not fails, merely falters). She starts strong with the chapter that gives this book its title, she covers all the "bases" with types of religions/supernatural views, and she does end strong with a "what can you do" and a myriad of resources (hyperlinked in the e-book for incredibly easy access).
Positives: Active hyperlinks pepper the book, allowing the reader to hit article's she references, access websites for additional information or resources, and connect with like-minds. She has an attractive and strong voice that comes through in her writing. Finally, she ties together the political and social implications both of religion and of atheists coming out of the shadows.
Negatives: The chapters between her "Yes, I am Talking to You" chapters (addressing objections from different religious groups) and the final chapter (and resources) was over-done and repetitive. The audience for this book is mostly atheists, so telling us why we should be activists is a bit too preachy. Yes, our silence allows the religious to dominate. But as anyone who has ever been involved in this debate will attest, there ARE some atheists who practice what Dawkins calls "the Neville Chamberlaine approach," seeking "peace in our time" as the thugs march over us. Put another way, I am not certain the call for activism was really necessary in a book written for people who are likely already activists.
A strongly feminine atheist voice who does not scream feminism at her readers. I can STRONGLY recommend this book without reservations, and I hope some non-activist atheists will read it, get sufficiently pissed off, and join us in pushing back the religious.
This is the third book of this sort I have read (the first two being "Drunk With Blood: God's Killings in the Bible" by Steve Wells, and "Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History" by Chris Rodda) and would rank it better than "Liars for Jesus" on readability but not as well-written as "Drunk with Blood."
Greta Christina has, for lack of a better term, a very aggressive writing style. This is a good thing for a book about being an angry atheist. However, aggressive writing only takes one so far and I strongly think she falters in the middle (not fails, merely falters). She starts strong with the chapter that gives this book its title, she covers all the "bases" with types of religions/supernatural views, and she does end strong with a "what can you do" and a myriad of resources (hyperlinked in the e-book for incredibly easy access).
Positives: Active hyperlinks pepper the book, allowing the reader to hit article's she references, access websites for additional information or resources, and connect with like-minds. She has an attractive and strong voice that comes through in her writing. Finally, she ties together the political and social implications both of religion and of atheists coming out of the shadows.
Negatives: The chapters between her "Yes, I am Talking to You" chapters (addressing objections from different religious groups) and the final chapter (and resources) was over-done and repetitive. The audience for this book is mostly atheists, so telling us why we should be activists is a bit too preachy. Yes, our silence allows the religious to dominate. But as anyone who has ever been involved in this debate will attest, there ARE some atheists who practice what Dawkins calls "the Neville Chamberlaine approach," seeking "peace in our time" as the thugs march over us. Put another way, I am not certain the call for activism was really necessary in a book written for people who are likely already activists.
A strongly feminine atheist voice who does not scream feminism at her readers. I can STRONGLY recommend this book without reservations, and I hope some non-activist atheists will read it, get sufficiently pissed off, and join us in pushing back the religious.
April 1, 2012
It's nice to see an ever-growing library of books on atheism and reason. This one is a little different, and has a rather catchy title. Self-published too - and it reads like that. Which is what makes it different. It's something in complete contrast to something like Dennett Daniel's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon - this is grass roots activism turned into a book. I guess in the old days of a movement one would distribute pamphlets. The new age of self-publishing lets you do something else - distribute a book. In terms of books I like reading, I'd probably only give it 3 stars. She's preaching to the converted. But somehow 3 stars wasn't enough. It's worth taking a peek. There's a lovely little quote in a section about religious diversity, which can really be applied to the entire atheist movement: "It's not an attack on diversity - it's a defence of reality."
June 26, 2012
I noticed this book while I was browsing for another book, and the title jumped out at me. I decided to give it a go.
It's self-published, and I think it could have used a little more editing. There were a few repetitive phrases, and the tone shifted here and there. It was pretty easy to read, and I may think this because I already know this about the author, but it reads like a series of blog entries. I also didn't like how the target audience seemed to shift back and forth from believers to atheists. It's annoying to ranted at for something you haven't done.
It was interesting, thought provoking. The arguments were well thought-out and specific. I don't know if I agree with all of it, but there were parts that I had definitely thought before. And I think this is a book that people should read, especially people considering atheism.
It didn't change me. I'm not going to do anything that I'm not doing already, but it did give me some things to think about.
It's self-published, and I think it could have used a little more editing. There were a few repetitive phrases, and the tone shifted here and there. It was pretty easy to read, and I may think this because I already know this about the author, but it reads like a series of blog entries. I also didn't like how the target audience seemed to shift back and forth from believers to atheists. It's annoying to ranted at for something you haven't done.
It was interesting, thought provoking. The arguments were well thought-out and specific. I don't know if I agree with all of it, but there were parts that I had definitely thought before. And I think this is a book that people should read, especially people considering atheism.
It didn't change me. I'm not going to do anything that I'm not doing already, but it did give me some things to think about.
August 21, 2012
Most books on atheism tends to preach to the choir, and I find this book easier to relate to since it also addresses practical issues of what you can achieve as an atheist rather than focusing on complicated logical debate about the "usual" subjects. As has been stated in other reviews, her writing can get repetitive at times. The book would've got 4 stars otherwise.
November 3, 2012
I thought I was pretty good at articulating my atheism, but Greta Christina does a terrific job of filling in all of the gaps in my objections and logic.
Definitely recommended, not just for atheists, but for the religious and semi-religious who want a clear, cogent explanation of why we get all fired up.
Definitely recommended, not just for atheists, but for the religious and semi-religious who want a clear, cogent explanation of why we get all fired up.
March 22, 2012
even better than I expected, I have seen her basic rant before, it takes up the first chapter, the rest just gets better.
Currently reading
April 6, 2012Not sure why Goodreads only lists the Kindle edition. I have the Nook edition and I am pretty sure it's also available in print.
July 21, 2015
Yes, yes. And yes. Though I've read Greta Christina's blog for years and heard her talk on this subject, her clear, rational voice never gets old. How could any believer in the supernatural withstand this veritable wall of reason and logic? Well, surprisingly enough, some people take pride in holding unsupportable beliefs. I can't do it; I guess it's a weakness of mine. As a Christian I was expected to swallow an awful lot of crazy things -- things that violate the laws of physics and biology. Once I reached the age of reason, trying to reconcile these beliefs with what my senses told me made me insane. I needed cohesion, consistency, continuity, integrity. I relied on the scientific method, not superstition, to determine what is true or likely to be true. So I became an Atheist, and everything fell into place.
Though these things had been percolating in me since at least 2008, the sea change happened about three years ago. I read God is not Great and The God Delusion, and Greta Christina's blog was instrumental in my finding out not just that atheism makes sense, but that an atheist community exists. I was excited and wanted to talk about it and learn more. I joined meetup groups and gave a talk on the separation of church and state to forty people. That, and participating in activities like volunteer work and donating blood while wearing my atheist t-shirt, coming out to friends and family (and sometimes to strangers if it's appropriate, like the hiker on the trail who invited me to her LDS church) has been the extent of my activism so far.
I would call upon these thorough and well-stated arguments to use in debates and discussions if a believer initiated them.
I was one of Greta Christina's silent lurkers. Her blog was a major force in my de-conversion and reeducation. She uses repetition to great effect. A lot of people don't hear something until you've repeated it a couple of times. For instance, in sections 86, 87, and 88 in the first chapter, she repeats the phrase "tsunamis and drought and pediatric cancer" in a way that just brings it.
Atheism and Skepticism: Overlapping Magisteria
Greta Christina takes the definition of atheism further than simple nonbelief in god(s). Well, she doesn't actually define it -- she says it's different for each atheist, but her book talks about more than conventional, organized religion. In Chapter 5 she addresses New Age religion and "woo" beliefs. She writes that they can do harm because "[f]alse premises lead to bad decisions. And untestable hypotheses make it impossible to evaluate your decision-making process and adjust it. Garbage in, garbage out." She goes on to say "Woo, like every other religious or spiritual belief, ultimately prioritizes faith over reason; personal experience over external evidence." In this chapter she mentions magical beliefs about medicine. Sometimes when I rant about atheists who have rejected the god hypothesis but still believe in other things like homeopathy, chiropractic, conspiracy theories (nine eleven truthers, anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO people), and even those who follow diet fads, my interlocutor tells me those have nothing to do with atheism because atheism is limited to nonbelief in a deity. I disagree. I arrived at my nonbelief through logic and reason, and I reject all untestable, unfalsifiable beliefs -- including ones that aren't religious. I think there is a great deal of overlap between atheism and skepticism, and I wish all atheists were as skeptical as I am. If you ask me, science denial is harmful regardless of the religious beliefs of the denier, and atheists need to address it. See this talk by Jamy Ian Swiss: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DIiznLE...
So, yeah, I'm an angry atheist, for all the reasons Greta Christina stated, and most of all because of the real harm all superstitious and magical beliefs, including religious ones, can do.
Though these things had been percolating in me since at least 2008, the sea change happened about three years ago. I read God is not Great and The God Delusion, and Greta Christina's blog was instrumental in my finding out not just that atheism makes sense, but that an atheist community exists. I was excited and wanted to talk about it and learn more. I joined meetup groups and gave a talk on the separation of church and state to forty people. That, and participating in activities like volunteer work and donating blood while wearing my atheist t-shirt, coming out to friends and family (and sometimes to strangers if it's appropriate, like the hiker on the trail who invited me to her LDS church) has been the extent of my activism so far.
I would call upon these thorough and well-stated arguments to use in debates and discussions if a believer initiated them.
I was one of Greta Christina's silent lurkers. Her blog was a major force in my de-conversion and reeducation. She uses repetition to great effect. A lot of people don't hear something until you've repeated it a couple of times. For instance, in sections 86, 87, and 88 in the first chapter, she repeats the phrase "tsunamis and drought and pediatric cancer" in a way that just brings it.
Atheism and Skepticism: Overlapping Magisteria
Greta Christina takes the definition of atheism further than simple nonbelief in god(s). Well, she doesn't actually define it -- she says it's different for each atheist, but her book talks about more than conventional, organized religion. In Chapter 5 she addresses New Age religion and "woo" beliefs. She writes that they can do harm because "[f]alse premises lead to bad decisions. And untestable hypotheses make it impossible to evaluate your decision-making process and adjust it. Garbage in, garbage out." She goes on to say "Woo, like every other religious or spiritual belief, ultimately prioritizes faith over reason; personal experience over external evidence." In this chapter she mentions magical beliefs about medicine. Sometimes when I rant about atheists who have rejected the god hypothesis but still believe in other things like homeopathy, chiropractic, conspiracy theories (nine eleven truthers, anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO people), and even those who follow diet fads, my interlocutor tells me those have nothing to do with atheism because atheism is limited to nonbelief in a deity. I disagree. I arrived at my nonbelief through logic and reason, and I reject all untestable, unfalsifiable beliefs -- including ones that aren't religious. I think there is a great deal of overlap between atheism and skepticism, and I wish all atheists were as skeptical as I am. If you ask me, science denial is harmful regardless of the religious beliefs of the denier, and atheists need to address it. See this talk by Jamy Ian Swiss: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DIiznLE...
So, yeah, I'm an angry atheist, for all the reasons Greta Christina stated, and most of all because of the real harm all superstitious and magical beliefs, including religious ones, can do.
December 17, 2012
For the most part, this book is a big list of adverse impacts religion has had on society and people. There's a small section midway through that sets out the basic reasons why atheists don't believe in a god, but for the most part this is about the negative effects of organised religion. It's an interesting enough quick read for an atheist (I'm one), as though it covers a lot of familiar ground, there are plenty of aspects you won't have thought about. You'll very likely end up more angry than you started, but hopefully in a constructive and proactive way.
However, I'd recommend this book mostly to people who are religious. We atheists already KNOW why you get angry at us. What I often encounter though, is religious people with no idea why atheists get so worked up about them. Why not live and let live, each to their own, everybody wrapped in their own belief system? Well, this book will put you inside an atheist's head for a little while, and if you're able to put yourself in their shoes for even a few moments, you'll at least understand why so many atheists are unwilling to stay quiet, even if you disagree. It might also give you some ammunition of your own. If you know the sort of things an atheist is thinking, you may be better equipped if you ever find yourself debating with one. Atheists spend a lot more time thinking about this stuff than believers do, which inevitably means they're usually very well informed. There's no reason why believers shouldn't be as well. A snappy read, uncomfortable in places, but in a challenging way.
However, I'd recommend this book mostly to people who are religious. We atheists already KNOW why you get angry at us. What I often encounter though, is religious people with no idea why atheists get so worked up about them. Why not live and let live, each to their own, everybody wrapped in their own belief system? Well, this book will put you inside an atheist's head for a little while, and if you're able to put yourself in their shoes for even a few moments, you'll at least understand why so many atheists are unwilling to stay quiet, even if you disagree. It might also give you some ammunition of your own. If you know the sort of things an atheist is thinking, you may be better equipped if you ever find yourself debating with one. Atheists spend a lot more time thinking about this stuff than believers do, which inevitably means they're usually very well informed. There's no reason why believers shouldn't be as well. A snappy read, uncomfortable in places, but in a challenging way.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 130 reviews