Evidently, this audio book is one long list of things that Greta is angry about. I too am an atheist, but I'm not angry or even sorry. Sure, I am tired of Christians (theists) flaunting their religion in my face and I too am tired of seeing the cross displayed as a piece of jewelry (this was an instrument used for torture and death, if not performed on Jesus then it was most certainly inflicted on countless others), however, it doesn't make me angry, just sad. I am sad that so many people claim to follow a man known only as Jesus, a man that nobody can prove even existed, and yet these same people can vanquish all other non-believers to eternal hell and torment while they, in turn, will enjoy every imaginable luxury in heaven. How dare they. However, with this said, it's still a sad excuse for a book simply to lists all the things that makes one angry. I am sorry that I could only listen to 20 minutes of this book before turning it off. Enjoy yourself Greta.
I am an atheist but couldn't finish this very depressing book. I didn't want to spend my time listening to a lot of lists of various headlines of people doing bad things. I had hoped it would have been a little more informative, not boring. Her voice was irritating too. Anyone who is an atheist already knows all this stuff.
The book is pretty much a rant. I was really disappointed that Ms Christina was not able to put together a coherent world view. She ascribed anything that she didn't agree with to those "horrible" Christians, indicating that she really understands nothing about Christians.
It is unlikely that I would ever knowingly listen to Ms Christina again.
The three words that best describe Greta Chistina's performance, in my opinion, are: ranting, disjointed, and, frankly, ignorant, in that she does not seem to know the Christian doctrines she takes issue with.
Overall this book generated disappointment in that I expected a coherent understanding of the atheists' viewpoints. Instead I discovered that this atheist, at least, is as unclear about what she believes as she is about what others believe.
The author; reading her own work, does a good job with pacing, diction, enunciation, and so on, which (as someone hearing-impaired) I appreciate.
However, she has one particular tic which started as a minor distraction, but soon came to dominate my perception of her narration: she laugh-talks when making emphasis. She seems to believe that this is a form of self-deprecation (and she says as much), but instead she uses it as a way of expressing emotional connection to the message. This might not have been so bothersome if it were not for the fact that she consistently laughs (literally) any time she makes mention of something that she believes is so obvious that it doesn't bear mentioning, and any time she mentions anything with which she doesn't agree politically. This significantly weakens her arguments when it is used, as it comes across that, instead of using facts, she is using mockery to try to score points.
After an excellent introduction and initial chapter, in which her political leanings (firmly Liberal, in the U.S. definition) appear only on occasion and do not significantly change the argument, the book moves slowly but steadily downhill. After she makes a good mention about how one's own personal politics are a common area of strongly-held (and it is implied, often irrational) beliefs that can interfere with one's perception of reality, she begins a pattern of adulterating many of her arguments with her own political tenets, all of these stated uncritically, and many of them of arguable veracity. Such incursions are not omnipresent, but they appear at regular intervals, and increase in frequency as the book progresses. What would otherwise be a strong collection of arguments is therefore weakened significantly, to the point that I think anyone not agreeing with her specific political point of view will find the book off-putting. Since she explicitly states a desire to persuade people, she should have left the political dogma out.
The author's narration only heightens the jarring nature of these ideological intrusions, as she reserves her strongest laughter for those moments when she is bringing her political views to the fore, underlining the perception that all she has to back these assertions is mockery.
Still, the first chapter is extremely good and thoroughly researched, and stands out as the strongest part of the work. If she'd kept more to facts and less to opinion in the rest of the book, it would certainly have rated higher, but the best I can give it now is 3 stars.
Family father, neuroscientist, and non-fiction addict.
This book begins with a collection of 100 reasons why religion, generally speaking, stinks. Almost all reasons given fall into one of the three following categories: 1) Religious people behaving badly (ex systematic child molesting) 2) Religious people receiving special treatment (ex people excused because they've dice something for religious reasons and 3) non religious people being discriminated against (ex can't get elected president). These 100 reasons are presented in a rather haphazard unstructured way. Moreover, because 100 reasons are presented in a short amount of space, don’t expect any depth of analysis. Most reasons are just 1-4 sentences. To take a few examples:
Atheists are angry because…
- 53 percent of Americans don’t want an atheist president
- Because the catholic church protected child rapists from being prosecuted
- 40% of Utah homeless people are outcast gays
- That polite atheists are deemed intolerant
- Writing about your atheist opinion can [in some countries] result in death
To be fair to G.Christina, she does acknowledge that her list is unstructured and that there is a lot more to all of the arguments. The list I suppose could be seen more as a starting point for further discussions. It also provides many reminders for atheist readers such as myself about all the things that are wrong with religion.
Beyond the list, the book provides answers to some frequently asked questions that are typically directed at atheists, such as “isn’t atheism just another religion?”, or “why do you not make a clear distinction between moderate religious practitioners and fundamentalists?”. As such this book can provide interested readers with a somewhat shallow overview explaining why atheists don't like religion. However, compared to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (which is probably trumped by other books), this is an inferior book in almost every respect. The God Delusion does everything that this book does, only better, and it is also more well written. The one advantage that this book have is that it is shorter. So, if you have a tight schedule this book might be an alternative. However, even in the short introduction to atheism category, a better alternative is Sam Harris book, letter to a christian nation which drives home the same points in a more powerful and coherent way.
When commuting to and from work about 2 hours daily, and while doing the more basic functions of my job, a good audiobook provides the pace.
I finished this in a day and a half, if my boss wasn't so adamant about me doing my job I would have finished on the first day.
The author does a great job expressing the frustration of dealing with a magical thinking world, while respecting those still caught in it's vortex of immoral non-consistent and out-right harmful doctrine and dogma.
Slick Arguments from atheist activists, title is deceptively brilliant as I got the intent wrong the first time I saw it. The content is profoundly economized to make the point. I would recommend this to anyone disturbed or a scholar of things about theism and atheism.
For somebody who never heard of Atheism before it will be a nice introduction
Hyperbole is the Best Thing EVER!!!!
Seriously, this woman is not worth your time if you're an atheist with any amount of critical thinking. She exists for that segment of us that just is looking for a reason to hate. I hate those people as much as I hate fundies in other philosophical enclaves.
You can find an atheist with a love of knowledge, a sense of humor, a sense of propriety and a need for truth.
Oh wait. You can find thousands of them. You can find many of them that write books.
She's not of them.
And comparing herself to the like of Dawkins and the Hitch just makes me loathe her.
So if you aren't an atheist......she's not a good sampling
If you are......you should know better.