No. If you want a good book on the subject read Penn jillette's God No.
No, just her writings
She is spinning her politics into a religious manifesto where if you don't agree with her your wrong. She and many others (bill maher comes to mind) are trying to turn atheism from an unaffiliated lack of faith, into a collective that have the same doctrine and sheep their way through life. the very thing that turned me away from any faith, which is an us vs them outlook on life, is the object of this book.
She is condescending to the reader throughout much of the book, talking down to you because you are not nearly as enlightened as she is, and just like the forces she is writing against, she lets you know, if you don't share her ideas you are not only wrong, but stupid. She is also condescending by saying things like " I don't hate people that think differently than be, BUT...." and then uses a vast vocabulary to tell you she hates people that don't share her doctrine.
And keep in mind I am a free thinker and agree with her statements about how atheists should be taken seriously, and 2000 year old sheep herder's campfire stories should not dictate our national policies. But I don't think that someone with a different opinion is somehow a lesser person or inferior.
Its the same BS the the religious right has been feeding us for centuries just wrapped up with an angry leftist vibe, repackaged think like us and sold back to you.
I would remove the author as the narrator. The woman was unable to hide her contempt for others in her voice. She would say something that she thought was bullet proof or a huge insult on "the other side" and then make a small smug laugh and she did it throughout the whole book.
I have a saying. "Try not to argue with someone that shares the same opinion with you." Man, this book really makes that hard.
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.
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