Scan barcode
annepw's review against another edition
2.0
There are a few good essays in here but this is mostly mediocre.
bigsmiles's review against another edition
3.0
Meh, good arguments but a boring book overall, some parts were interesting but it was basically twenty different authors trying to hammer down the same nail into your brain
lckeser7's review against another edition
2.0
Let me begin by stating that this book, as a whole, does NOT deserve the two stars given. The whole is less than the sum of its parts. Four chapters are worth reading. Those chapters are worthy of a four or five star review, but the rest is vacuous drivel used to fill out a couple hundred useless pages.
The first good bit is a refutation of the idea that the US is a Christian nation. While I found this chapter quite interesting, detailed, and well argued it has nothing to do with the title of the book (Everything You Know About God is Wrong). This is not about false theistic ideas, this is about misconceptions relating to the country and its government.
I also enjoyed the section on the posting of The Ten Commandments (although this section suffers from the same problem as the last: it isn't about God so much as about people and government). There have been politicians, seemingly in greater numbers and of stronger conviction, who want to post the biblical commandments because they are from the "highest authority." The problems with this are numerous (not including the separation of church and state), but I'll just name a few. One, to post a monument (idol) of any kind is to break the second commandment which forbids making any graven image: posting The Ten Commandments would actually be breaking one of the commandments (just like saluting the flag, another form of idol worship that should be forbidden if you take the commandments at their word). This self-contradictory position should be nothing new to people who read the Bible though. Second, let's look back at the first commandment: Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me. Is one specific God now being mandated by the government offices who propose posting these commandments? What of freedom of and from religion as promised in the first amendment? Which of these glorious documents should we follow, since they stand so opposed to one another? Third, what to do about those commandments against which we have no laws. The third commandment tells us not to swear, but enforcing that would limit Freedom of Speech. Commandment four says we can't work on the Sabbath, the fifth tells us to honor our parents (even if they REALLY don't deserve it?), and the tenth tells us not to covet our neighbors' things (interesting that the wife is listed among our neighbors' possessions). Want is what drives the capitalist free-market, if we should stop coveting, wouldn't that destroy our economy more than Obama ever could? Finally, if we should enforce the commandments, as recommended by the "good" book itself, we would have to kill those who break these ancient laws (at leat for 1-7).
The other two sections of the book that I enjoyed--but will not be analyzing here--are "The God from Galilee," which recounts Jesus' contradictions, failures at prophecy, and his real message: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword," (Matt. 10:34), and "Who Wrote the Gospels?" which examines Biblical history, especially in regard to the Gospels, and ennumerates the ways in which the writings differ and contradict each other. This section also makes sure to illustrate the point that all evidence points to the fact that the Gospels were written well after (decades after) the death of Jesus and therefore wouldn't be eyewitness accounts, and they were not written by the men whose names appear in their titles (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).
Now to begin with why this book is so terrible. I should start by saying that I am an atheist, so this book is preaching to the choir. Since I have read a few books that deal with much of the same material, perhaps it is harder to make an impression.
The quality of the book varies from chapter to chapter, owing to the fact that this is a compilation of essays from various authors. Some are better writers than others, some are better rhetoricians.
The book opens with the obligatory piece by Richard Dawkins. I like Dawkins. Usually. This particular piece contains all of the reasons that people dislike him (reasons other than he is an heretic). He denigrates those whose beliefs differ from his. He is smarmy. He is attempting to be clever (but fails in this case). He is out to prove he is smarter than those who might read his work. This last bit is probably true; he is probably more intelligent than most of us, but the way to ingratiate people to your cause is not to belittle their intelligence.
Excepting the problems I've already discussed, there are two major problems with the arguments made in most of the rest of the book, though they are basically the same problem mirrored. There are several sections that detail the strange things that particular sects do to worship their gods. The book delves into snake-handlers, fecalpheliacs, pot-smokers, etc. One of the longer portions of this book is the "Philadelphia Grand Jury Report on Abusive Priests and the Cardinals Who Enabled Them." This is disturbing stuff, no doubt. It is also filler. No one had to write this for its inclusion in the book, the editor plucked it from the public record and deposited it to take up space and to attempt to prove a point. The problem is that his point is moot and has nothing at all to do with god. None of the stories of the strange, unconventional behaviors of any sect has anything to do with god. Yes, some people do disgusting things and they happen to be believers. That doesn't solve anything and it isn't an argument any more than those who try to taint atheists by pointing out that Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot were non-believers. The fact that a minority of people in a group perform outrageous or reprehensible acts does not mean that by extension all people of that group are guilty. I don't want to be judged as an atheist for the acts of Stalin.
The mirrored side of this problem are the sections of the books that try to make some sort of argument based on the anecdotes of professed atheists. Anecdotal evidence is not permissible in such an argument. Believers, too, have plenty of anecdotal "evidence" that hasn't convinced us, why then, should our anecdotes be used to try to win them?
To summarize the argumentative problems above, both scenarios attempt to take a minority (or singular in the second case) worldview and apply it to some whole: 1) A few people do this, so they all do it and are therefore evil/wrong/stupid. 2) This happened to me so you should feel like this too.
The rest of the book is filled with sections on sex and how it is viewed by different religions, and absolutely pointless things like a list of non-believing musical composers and performers. Who cares? The worst part from this list is the mention of Mozart. The section is called "It Ain't Necessarily So: Music's Debt to Nonbelievers." They list Mozart among these nonbelievers and paint him as such in the first part of the blurb about the man, and then admit that he was "probably not an atheist." The compiler of this list is being disingenuous at best.
Another pointless section of this book has to do with the plagiarism claims and lawsuits against Dan Brown for The Da Vinci Code. Again, who cares?
If you're interested, as a believer or an atheist, in reading books of this sort, I'd recommend avoiding this one (or only reading the sections mentioned at the start of this review). Instead look for George H. Smith's [b:Atheism: The Case Against God|97078|Atheism The Case Against God|George H. Smith|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1223646217s/97078.jpg|93576], or Richard Dawkins' [b:The God Delusion|14743|The God Delusion|Richard Dawkins|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1166659877s/14743.jpg|3044365].
The first good bit is a refutation of the idea that the US is a Christian nation. While I found this chapter quite interesting, detailed, and well argued it has nothing to do with the title of the book (Everything You Know About God is Wrong). This is not about false theistic ideas, this is about misconceptions relating to the country and its government.
I also enjoyed the section on the posting of The Ten Commandments (although this section suffers from the same problem as the last: it isn't about God so much as about people and government). There have been politicians, seemingly in greater numbers and of stronger conviction, who want to post the biblical commandments because they are from the "highest authority." The problems with this are numerous (not including the separation of church and state), but I'll just name a few. One, to post a monument (idol) of any kind is to break the second commandment which forbids making any graven image: posting The Ten Commandments would actually be breaking one of the commandments (just like saluting the flag, another form of idol worship that should be forbidden if you take the commandments at their word). This self-contradictory position should be nothing new to people who read the Bible though. Second, let's look back at the first commandment: Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me. Is one specific God now being mandated by the government offices who propose posting these commandments? What of freedom of and from religion as promised in the first amendment? Which of these glorious documents should we follow, since they stand so opposed to one another? Third, what to do about those commandments against which we have no laws. The third commandment tells us not to swear, but enforcing that would limit Freedom of Speech. Commandment four says we can't work on the Sabbath, the fifth tells us to honor our parents (even if they REALLY don't deserve it?), and the tenth tells us not to covet our neighbors' things (interesting that the wife is listed among our neighbors' possessions). Want is what drives the capitalist free-market, if we should stop coveting, wouldn't that destroy our economy more than Obama ever could? Finally, if we should enforce the commandments, as recommended by the "good" book itself, we would have to kill those who break these ancient laws (at leat for 1-7).
The other two sections of the book that I enjoyed--but will not be analyzing here--are "The God from Galilee," which recounts Jesus' contradictions, failures at prophecy, and his real message: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword," (Matt. 10:34), and "Who Wrote the Gospels?" which examines Biblical history, especially in regard to the Gospels, and ennumerates the ways in which the writings differ and contradict each other. This section also makes sure to illustrate the point that all evidence points to the fact that the Gospels were written well after (decades after) the death of Jesus and therefore wouldn't be eyewitness accounts, and they were not written by the men whose names appear in their titles (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).
Now to begin with why this book is so terrible. I should start by saying that I am an atheist, so this book is preaching to the choir. Since I have read a few books that deal with much of the same material, perhaps it is harder to make an impression.
The quality of the book varies from chapter to chapter, owing to the fact that this is a compilation of essays from various authors. Some are better writers than others, some are better rhetoricians.
The book opens with the obligatory piece by Richard Dawkins. I like Dawkins. Usually. This particular piece contains all of the reasons that people dislike him (reasons other than he is an heretic). He denigrates those whose beliefs differ from his. He is smarmy. He is attempting to be clever (but fails in this case). He is out to prove he is smarter than those who might read his work. This last bit is probably true; he is probably more intelligent than most of us, but the way to ingratiate people to your cause is not to belittle their intelligence.
Excepting the problems I've already discussed, there are two major problems with the arguments made in most of the rest of the book, though they are basically the same problem mirrored. There are several sections that detail the strange things that particular sects do to worship their gods. The book delves into snake-handlers, fecalpheliacs, pot-smokers, etc. One of the longer portions of this book is the "Philadelphia Grand Jury Report on Abusive Priests and the Cardinals Who Enabled Them." This is disturbing stuff, no doubt. It is also filler. No one had to write this for its inclusion in the book, the editor plucked it from the public record and deposited it to take up space and to attempt to prove a point. The problem is that his point is moot and has nothing at all to do with god. None of the stories of the strange, unconventional behaviors of any sect has anything to do with god. Yes, some people do disgusting things and they happen to be believers. That doesn't solve anything and it isn't an argument any more than those who try to taint atheists by pointing out that Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot were non-believers. The fact that a minority of people in a group perform outrageous or reprehensible acts does not mean that by extension all people of that group are guilty. I don't want to be judged as an atheist for the acts of Stalin.
The mirrored side of this problem are the sections of the books that try to make some sort of argument based on the anecdotes of professed atheists. Anecdotal evidence is not permissible in such an argument. Believers, too, have plenty of anecdotal "evidence" that hasn't convinced us, why then, should our anecdotes be used to try to win them?
To summarize the argumentative problems above, both scenarios attempt to take a minority (or singular in the second case) worldview and apply it to some whole: 1) A few people do this, so they all do it and are therefore evil/wrong/stupid. 2) This happened to me so you should feel like this too.
The rest of the book is filled with sections on sex and how it is viewed by different religions, and absolutely pointless things like a list of non-believing musical composers and performers. Who cares? The worst part from this list is the mention of Mozart. The section is called "It Ain't Necessarily So: Music's Debt to Nonbelievers." They list Mozart among these nonbelievers and paint him as such in the first part of the blurb about the man, and then admit that he was "probably not an atheist." The compiler of this list is being disingenuous at best.
Another pointless section of this book has to do with the plagiarism claims and lawsuits against Dan Brown for The Da Vinci Code. Again, who cares?
If you're interested, as a believer or an atheist, in reading books of this sort, I'd recommend avoiding this one (or only reading the sections mentioned at the start of this review). Instead look for George H. Smith's [b:Atheism: The Case Against God|97078|Atheism The Case Against God|George H. Smith|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1223646217s/97078.jpg|93576], or Richard Dawkins' [b:The God Delusion|14743|The God Delusion|Richard Dawkins|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1166659877s/14743.jpg|3044365].
curgoth's review
2.0
A few decent articles, but for the most part, the Lamestream Media is ignoring these stories because they're poorly researched and poorly written, not because the ideas are Too Dangerous To Know!!!!
Mickey Z's article on veganism made me, who is generally in favour of veganism, think that perhaps I should reconsider and go eat kittens. If the pro-vegan movement is *that* awful, maybe I should get further away from it.
Journalism this bad isn't being covered up by the Man. It's not being covered because it's just bad journalism.
Mickey Z's article on veganism made me, who is generally in favour of veganism, think that perhaps I should reconsider and go eat kittens. If the pro-vegan movement is *that* awful, maybe I should get further away from it.
Journalism this bad isn't being covered up by the Man. It's not being covered because it's just bad journalism.
psalmcat's review against another edition
3.0
Well. Where to start?
Some of the essays included in this were interesting; in fact, most were thought-provoking and worthwhile. There were a couple though...whew. Oh my God (pun intended).
Paper tigers created? check
Facile arguments? check
Mispronounced words? check ("KapperNYAYum" for "Capernaum"? Really?)
I'm becoming increasingly annoying that when people argue about "Christians" or "religion" the Typical Christian/Religious Person is a completely unethical moron. Sure, there are moronic and amoral Christians, but there are a lot more of us who are neither.
The best essay is the longest, which is the summation of findings of the investigation into the Catholic diocese in Philadelphia around child sexual abuse. Absolutely the most disgusting, difficult thing I've ever listened to. It shook me to the core that the Church ignored this for decades and turned a blind eye to the destruction of children's souls.
The other very good essay is about the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland. Another case of the Church having a lot to answer for.
Short version: people suck, and power corrupts, inside as well as outside of religion.
Some of the essays included in this were interesting; in fact, most were thought-provoking and worthwhile. There were a couple though...whew. Oh my God (pun intended).
Paper tigers created? check
Facile arguments? check
Mispronounced words? check ("KapperNYAYum" for "Capernaum"? Really?)
I'm becoming increasingly annoying that when people argue about "Christians" or "religion" the Typical Christian/Religious Person is a completely unethical moron. Sure, there are moronic and amoral Christians, but there are a lot more of us who are neither.
The best essay is the longest, which is the summation of findings of the investigation into the Catholic diocese in Philadelphia around child sexual abuse. Absolutely the most disgusting, difficult thing I've ever listened to. It shook me to the core that the Church ignored this for decades and turned a blind eye to the destruction of children's souls.
The other very good essay is about the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland. Another case of the Church having a lot to answer for.
Short version: people suck, and power corrupts, inside as well as outside of religion.
More...