Why Are You Atheists So Angry?: 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless

I wish everyone, atheist or non, would listen to at least the 3rd and 4th chapters of this book. We're all aware of the reasons why anger is sometimes an appropriate reaction to organized religion, but the book, to me, was not primarily about that. It's about reason and justice and whether or not human beings are really willing to offer more than lip service to these ideals which we claim to revere.

I would argue that those who consider themselves religious will not be particularly offended by this book, despite its "angry" title. You don't have to agree with Greta Christina to gain something from listening and to realize (and hopefully admit) that she makes some valid points here.

The author reads her book well and with conviction and humor - happily, not with anger. It's bound to make the listener look at religion in new ways.

Until Richard Dawkins came along and so elegantly skewered religion with his razor sharp intellect, I did not self-identify as an atheist but as just another former catholic. And then I was hit by the triple whammy in quick succession: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late and truly lamented Christopher Hitchens. I have never looked back. Yet, as good as their arguments are, they did not prepare me for the barrage of vitriol that most atheists face when they come out. And that, in a nutshell, is what Greta Christina's book is all about. Religions, she argues, exist on the continuum between good and evil. Some religions may be less evil than others right now, but the trend over time for all religions is toward evil. A few religions are explicitly evil, but the majority that are not lend credibility to those that are and thus they aid and abet evil.

Dawkins et al provide the intellectual arguments against belief in the supernatural, but Greta provides nuts and bolts arguments that I can put in my back pocket for the next time someone tells me that I'm no different from the believers . She is angry, it is true, but her arguments are reasoned, not shrill, and her anger fuels the impulse to try to make things better. I am angry right along with her because, for example, I loved the Boy Scouts but can no longer suppress my revulsion. Hitchens liked to say that religion as a way of understanding the universe belongs to the childhood of our species. This book is a step along the way toward leaving our imaginary friends behind, growing up, and taking responsibility for ourselves in the one and only life we get.

Honest, Surprising, Insightful, Revelation

It kept me thinking through the whole book.

I'm glad she read her own audio book. I like hearing it in the author's own voice and inflection.

I know this sounds trite but the whole book moved me. I have been the black sheep of my family all of my life. At times I felt guilty for being godless. My mother used to say "you are an athiest" but meant it in a bad way. The book made me finally, at 49, feel comfortable with my thoughts and being godless.

I kept saying to myself..."that's what I think!"

Usually I hate books where the author chooses to be narrator, rather than hiring a professional narrator. But in this instance, the author narrates well; probably because she is also a public speaker.

The book sets forth a persuasive case for atheism by using logic and reason and does so without being inflammatory or contentious. It is a book that teaches.

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.

For somebody who never heard of Atheism before it will be a nice introduction

N/A

Very Good

No

No

Perhaps not destined to receive any literary prizes, but a fun read for atheists. Considering the number of books that I wasn't able to finish, or had to struggle to finish, I would have to rate this book in about the 80th percentile.

The fact that it listed all of the diverse reasons that religion has been a bad influence in human society as well as being unsupportable as being true.

She managed not to make it sound like a rant. Her diction was clear and appropriately paced, with just enough emotion to emphasize her points.

Finally, an objective discussion of religion!

Most of the arguments and facts that she presented were already known to me, but she put them all together into a clear and compelling book.

I'm new to audiobooks, so the fact that it ranks in my top ten is meaningless, but I would listen to this title again.

I thought the arguments were laid out well and I liked the author's conversational tone (and performance), the lightness of the humor and that the message was delivered, but not in such a way that it seemed like a lecture.

I really appreciated her "vocal performance." She wrote the book in her first person voice and it seemed so natural and clear to hear her read her words in a conversational tone. It was like having coffee with her. I would love to have coffee with her because of this reading.

Yes. This is book was short and intruiging to me. While I was unable to listen to the whole thing in one sitting, it might get a repeat play in one sitting in the near future.

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.

This book raised many critical questions that both theist and atheist should listen too. Whilst being more prescriptive on the atheist side (understandable given the title and intent), this book also has a elements of science which is neutral. The narrator / author sometimes maximises intonation it almost feels like a conversation (one sided of course - given it s an audio-book).