Scan barcode
delaguila19's review
4.0
Excelente recopilación; es una especie de libro que siembra la curiosidad por otros autores, gracias a el descubrí a Primo Levi, Steven Weinberg y otros mas; las lecturas muy bien escogidas en su mayoria; muy recomendable y educativo para quienes empiezan a dudar de sus creencias.
rodhilton's review
1.0
Christopher Hitchens, author of "God is Not Great" has assembled something of a bible for atheists. There are many similar books out there, often with names like "The Atheist Bible," and all of them essentially set out to create a collection of inspirational writings about nonbelief.
Many of these have a humanist slant, or a morality slant, or a stress on the logic and reason of nonbelief. Hitchens, however, seems far more slanted in favor of criticism of religion. Most of the writings he has selected for his compilation criticize religion for its various failings.
Now, before I say what I thought about this book, I want to say a bit about my beliefs. I'm not a particularly religious person. I am usually reluctant to use the word "atheist" because that word's definition differs between people so greatly that using it does little more than fail to communicate anything useful to others. The word I prefer is "nonreligious" as it correctly conveys that I do not adhere to any organized religion or dogma. I am largely open minded but remain skeptical, and I demand evidence to prove things true before I accept them as fact.
I have read Dawkins's "The God Delusion", Harris's "The End of Faith", and Hitchens's "God is Not Great" and I found all three to be excellent books, which I would rate and recommend highly (though of the three, I found Harris's to be the most disappointing).
You would expect, then, that I would find a great deal to enjoy in this book. However, you would be wrong.
I absolutely hated "The Portable Atheist." And when I say hated, I mean I really, really hated it. Getting through this book was an absolute chore, and I likely would have given up on it if not for the fact that I felt I needed to read the entire thing to be qualified to write a review of it here.
The Portable Atheist is incredibly, unbearably boring. It may be one of the most boring books I've ever read in my life.
What Hitchens has deemed "essential readings for the non-believer" would be more accurately described as "a random collection of essay fragments and quotations that have something or other to do with nonbelief."
There appears to be no cohesive point to the book at all. It's not a series of writings that, together, make any kind of point. It's literally just essays, generally the most pretentious-sounding possible, that relate to nonbelief in some way or another. Some Einstein quotes, a chunk of a Bertrand Russell essay, and so forth, make up a book that could have been reorganized into literally any order without any noticeable effect. Any number of the essays could have been replaced with any number of other essays by notable nonbelievers and the book would have the exact same message: none at all.
The idea that this book is somehow "portable" like an atheist might carry it around with them as a source of inspiration when needed is laughable and embarrassing. Virtually none of the essays say anything positive about atheism, nonbelief, agnosticism, or humanism. Almost every essay is simply an attack on religion, usually Christianity.
Every single chapter of this book, and I mean every single one, would be better read as part of the original book in which it was published. This book is essentially a "greatest hits" collection, but like many greatest hits collection CDs the reader is often left wondering just what in the hell was the rationale behind the inclusion of some tracks. The book felt, to me, like an atheist blog, consisting of "I found this random essay interesting, here's an excerpt" style posts, published in no discernible order or with any discernible organization. It's as if Hitchens simply picked essays out of a bag and threw them together.
This book is positively dreadful, and I can't imagine any atheist enjoying it unless it's the first and only book about nonbelief they have ever read.
Many of these have a humanist slant, or a morality slant, or a stress on the logic and reason of nonbelief. Hitchens, however, seems far more slanted in favor of criticism of religion. Most of the writings he has selected for his compilation criticize religion for its various failings.
Now, before I say what I thought about this book, I want to say a bit about my beliefs. I'm not a particularly religious person. I am usually reluctant to use the word "atheist" because that word's definition differs between people so greatly that using it does little more than fail to communicate anything useful to others. The word I prefer is "nonreligious" as it correctly conveys that I do not adhere to any organized religion or dogma. I am largely open minded but remain skeptical, and I demand evidence to prove things true before I accept them as fact.
I have read Dawkins's "The God Delusion", Harris's "The End of Faith", and Hitchens's "God is Not Great" and I found all three to be excellent books, which I would rate and recommend highly (though of the three, I found Harris's to be the most disappointing).
You would expect, then, that I would find a great deal to enjoy in this book. However, you would be wrong.
I absolutely hated "The Portable Atheist." And when I say hated, I mean I really, really hated it. Getting through this book was an absolute chore, and I likely would have given up on it if not for the fact that I felt I needed to read the entire thing to be qualified to write a review of it here.
The Portable Atheist is incredibly, unbearably boring. It may be one of the most boring books I've ever read in my life.
What Hitchens has deemed "essential readings for the non-believer" would be more accurately described as "a random collection of essay fragments and quotations that have something or other to do with nonbelief."
There appears to be no cohesive point to the book at all. It's not a series of writings that, together, make any kind of point. It's literally just essays, generally the most pretentious-sounding possible, that relate to nonbelief in some way or another. Some Einstein quotes, a chunk of a Bertrand Russell essay, and so forth, make up a book that could have been reorganized into literally any order without any noticeable effect. Any number of the essays could have been replaced with any number of other essays by notable nonbelievers and the book would have the exact same message: none at all.
The idea that this book is somehow "portable" like an atheist might carry it around with them as a source of inspiration when needed is laughable and embarrassing. Virtually none of the essays say anything positive about atheism, nonbelief, agnosticism, or humanism. Almost every essay is simply an attack on religion, usually Christianity.
Every single chapter of this book, and I mean every single one, would be better read as part of the original book in which it was published. This book is essentially a "greatest hits" collection, but like many greatest hits collection CDs the reader is often left wondering just what in the hell was the rationale behind the inclusion of some tracks. The book felt, to me, like an atheist blog, consisting of "I found this random essay interesting, here's an excerpt" style posts, published in no discernible order or with any discernible organization. It's as if Hitchens simply picked essays out of a bag and threw them together.
This book is positively dreadful, and I can't imagine any atheist enjoying it unless it's the first and only book about nonbelief they have ever read.
stephenmeansme's review against another edition
3.0
NOTE: This is a review of the audiobook. For the physical book, I'd probably rate it 4/5.
The Portable Atheist is an interesting anthology. The late "New Atheist" Christopher Hitchens compiled snippets from all corners of the general intellectual tradition that touches on the Abrahamic religions, from people who generally disagreed with the mainstream versions of those religions. That said, I think everything about the title of this book is inaccurate.
First of all, not everyone in this book is, strictly speaking, an atheist, nor are all the excerpts attacking theism or defending atheism. Rather, the unifying antagonists are (1) the notion of a personal god, particularly one that punishes its creations; and (2) the dogmatic religion set up around this notion. A better title might be The Portable Freethinker, and as a collection of people challenging dogma and asserting an unfettered human dignity, it's a pretty good one. If nothing else, some less-famous (or less-famous-as-nonbelievers) choices in here will make good starting points for a wider-ranging library of free thought across the ages.
Notably, though, one has to keep a certain frame of mind while going through the book. Hitchens is sloppy in his introduction, I think, because he says "religion" and "god" when he really means "monotheistic religion such as grew to dominate Europe and the Middle East for the past few millennia"―that's why the furthest East you'll go is the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. One can more easily forgive the historical writers themselves, because in the globally-minded world of the pre-20th c., "religion" really did mean "the Christian religion," and "God" really did mean "the God of Abraham."
The selections, too, vary somewhat in quality and directness to the cause, as it were. Lucretius' De Rerum Natura is mildly interesting, but rather tangential. And Karl Marx's bit (the essay that includes his famous "opium of the people" quote) is overlong and tedious in the extreme: his convolutions of language made it very hard to pay attention or, indeed, to care much about what he was trying to say. The rest of the selections range from good to great.
The audiobook, however, is decidedly less good. The narrator, George Ball, has a fine voice and at times really brings out the rhetorical force of those writers. But the editing (or perhaps his own performance) is such that he at times has a very odd cadence―pausing briefly, but starting again as though on a fresh sentence. It can be jarring. Then there's the problem of Hitchens' introductory remarks on the work, which Ball doesn't read in a different style or even pause before continuing on to the work in question. This confused me more than once. The audiobook format is sometimes less effective than print: for example, H. L. Mencken's "Graveyard of Dead Gods" essay becomes very tedious when read aloud, as it's mostly a list of dead gods from foreign cultures. All the names sort of blur together in the ear. And some of the earlier works (Lucretius, Hobbes) can be tough listening due to their rhetorical structure.
Finally, the audiobook version is disappointingly abridged. I'm not entirely sure why, as the abridged version only comes out to 11 hours: they could have splurged for an extra few more.
Overall I think that the references are more important than the book itself, although (at least in print) it's a fine collection of essays and excerpts. Even for religious people, the voices of the past have some important things to say about all the ways to do religion poorly.
The Portable Atheist is an interesting anthology. The late "New Atheist" Christopher Hitchens compiled snippets from all corners of the general intellectual tradition that touches on the Abrahamic religions, from people who generally disagreed with the mainstream versions of those religions. That said, I think everything about the title of this book is inaccurate.
First of all, not everyone in this book is, strictly speaking, an atheist, nor are all the excerpts attacking theism or defending atheism. Rather, the unifying antagonists are (1) the notion of a personal god, particularly one that punishes its creations; and (2) the dogmatic religion set up around this notion. A better title might be The Portable Freethinker, and as a collection of people challenging dogma and asserting an unfettered human dignity, it's a pretty good one. If nothing else, some less-famous (or less-famous-as-nonbelievers) choices in here will make good starting points for a wider-ranging library of free thought across the ages.
Notably, though, one has to keep a certain frame of mind while going through the book. Hitchens is sloppy in his introduction, I think, because he says "religion" and "god" when he really means "monotheistic religion such as grew to dominate Europe and the Middle East for the past few millennia"―that's why the furthest East you'll go is the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. One can more easily forgive the historical writers themselves, because in the globally-minded world of the pre-20th c., "religion" really did mean "the Christian religion," and "God" really did mean "the God of Abraham."
The selections, too, vary somewhat in quality and directness to the cause, as it were. Lucretius' De Rerum Natura is mildly interesting, but rather tangential. And Karl Marx's bit (the essay that includes his famous "opium of the people" quote) is overlong and tedious in the extreme: his convolutions of language made it very hard to pay attention or, indeed, to care much about what he was trying to say. The rest of the selections range from good to great.
The audiobook, however, is decidedly less good. The narrator, George Ball, has a fine voice and at times really brings out the rhetorical force of those writers. But the editing (or perhaps his own performance) is such that he at times has a very odd cadence―pausing briefly, but starting again as though on a fresh sentence. It can be jarring. Then there's the problem of Hitchens' introductory remarks on the work, which Ball doesn't read in a different style or even pause before continuing on to the work in question. This confused me more than once. The audiobook format is sometimes less effective than print: for example, H. L. Mencken's "Graveyard of Dead Gods" essay becomes very tedious when read aloud, as it's mostly a list of dead gods from foreign cultures. All the names sort of blur together in the ear. And some of the earlier works (Lucretius, Hobbes) can be tough listening due to their rhetorical structure.
Finally, the audiobook version is disappointingly abridged. I'm not entirely sure why, as the abridged version only comes out to 11 hours: they could have splurged for an extra few more.
Overall I think that the references are more important than the book itself, although (at least in print) it's a fine collection of essays and excerpts. Even for religious people, the voices of the past have some important things to say about all the ways to do religion poorly.
mattycakesbooks's review
4.0
Ugh. I wrote an entire review and then it got deleted before I could save it.
Okay, quick points then:
First: This volume and a lot of the other work of the "new" atheists are extremely useful to those who are halfway between belief and unbelief. This books has the dissections of scripture - the contradictions, the immoralities, the absurdities - which, for someone who hasn't been convinced to leave religion behind, would be eye-opening. But for confirmed atheists, the fight should not be specifically against religion. As plenty of people have noted, it's hard to build a life around a lack of belief.
This isn't to say atheists don't have belief systems: it's just that they're varied and lack elements of the supernatural. Atheism is a very wide field, and you can have anti-theists like Hitchens, libertarians like Penn Jillette, or socialist humanists like Vonnegut all in the same category. What atheists should be doing, alongside deconstructing the absurdities of religion, is developing a rational belief system for people to come to. Otherwise, atheists are just tearing homes and then requesting a thanks for making the residents homeless.
The new home has to be built. Atheists can no longer focus all their attacks on destroying faith. They have to be constructive as well. There are a few prominent unbelievers who have done this pretty well: Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Kurt Vonnegut. But these guys don't get as much attention as they probably should. Instead, it's on the firebrands like Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris.
And yes, I realize the irony of an atheist complaining that the loudest, most extreme voices are the ones getting the most attention.
Second, we need to start recognizing that a fight against religion is a fight against a symptom, not a disease. Economic, racial, and social injustices in the form of lack of access to education, or adequate social support are often at the core of religious belief. It's no coincidence that countries with higher social safety nets and higher levels of education have larger proportions of unbelievers. To fix these social issues is to do half the job.
I had more, but I lost it because I clicked outside of this damn box. I might add more later.
Okay, quick points then:
First: This volume and a lot of the other work of the "new" atheists are extremely useful to those who are halfway between belief and unbelief. This books has the dissections of scripture - the contradictions, the immoralities, the absurdities - which, for someone who hasn't been convinced to leave religion behind, would be eye-opening. But for confirmed atheists, the fight should not be specifically against religion. As plenty of people have noted, it's hard to build a life around a lack of belief.
This isn't to say atheists don't have belief systems: it's just that they're varied and lack elements of the supernatural. Atheism is a very wide field, and you can have anti-theists like Hitchens, libertarians like Penn Jillette, or socialist humanists like Vonnegut all in the same category. What atheists should be doing, alongside deconstructing the absurdities of religion, is developing a rational belief system for people to come to. Otherwise, atheists are just tearing homes and then requesting a thanks for making the residents homeless.
The new home has to be built. Atheists can no longer focus all their attacks on destroying faith. They have to be constructive as well. There are a few prominent unbelievers who have done this pretty well: Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Kurt Vonnegut. But these guys don't get as much attention as they probably should. Instead, it's on the firebrands like Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris.
And yes, I realize the irony of an atheist complaining that the loudest, most extreme voices are the ones getting the most attention.
Second, we need to start recognizing that a fight against religion is a fight against a symptom, not a disease. Economic, racial, and social injustices in the form of lack of access to education, or adequate social support are often at the core of religious belief. It's no coincidence that countries with higher social safety nets and higher levels of education have larger proportions of unbelievers. To fix these social issues is to do half the job.
I had more, but I lost it because I clicked outside of this damn box. I might add more later.
kelamity_reads's review
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.0
The collection of writings included in this book are very interesting and well worth the read.
Many of Hitchens' insights are thought-provoking, but I've never been a fan of mocking other people for their beliefs, no matter how illogical I find them.
Hitchens clearly has a chip on their shoulder regarding religion, and it clearly comes through in their language.
Many of Hitchens' insights are thought-provoking, but I've never been a fan of mocking other people for their beliefs, no matter how illogical I find them.
Hitchens clearly has a chip on their shoulder regarding religion, and it clearly comes through in their language.
rgo's review
4.0
On the one hand, it’s the same ideas regurgitated in eleventeen different ways. On the other, the essays are all excellent and give the reader insight into the minds of a bevy of wonderful thinkers through history. And the introductions to each essay add just enough color to make the whole book cogent.
One idea that seems to have fallen out of favor but is especially prevalent in this book: the impossibility of miracles. Seems to almost be an ontological argument – if a miracle happened it was naturally possible and thus wasn’t a miracle! But interesting nonetheless.
One idea that seems to have fallen out of favor but is especially prevalent in this book: the impossibility of miracles. Seems to almost be an ontological argument – if a miracle happened it was naturally possible and thus wasn’t a miracle! But interesting nonetheless.
al_majisti's review
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
This book, an anthology, is hard to rate as the quality, tone and content of each part varies a lot. Some texts in here are incredible, others are just kind of there. In general, I think it's a great book and a great collection on the relevant topic, the texts are well selected. I would like to recommend the ones I liked best:
4.Baruch Spinoza
5. David Hume
7. Percy Bysshe Shelley
9. Karl Marx
10. George Eliot
12. Leslie Stephen
21. Sigmund Freud
22. Albert Einstein
23. Bertrand Russel
29. Carl Sagan
33. A. J. Ayer
36. Richard Dawkins
38. Daniel C. Dennett
39. Elizabeth Anderson
42. Steven Weinberg
46. A. C. Grayling
47. Ayaan Hirsi Ali
4.Baruch Spinoza
5. David Hume
7. Percy Bysshe Shelley
9. Karl Marx
10. George Eliot
12. Leslie Stephen
21. Sigmund Freud
22. Albert Einstein
23. Bertrand Russel
29. Carl Sagan
33. A. J. Ayer
36. Richard Dawkins
38. Daniel C. Dennett
39. Elizabeth Anderson
42. Steven Weinberg
46. A. C. Grayling
47. Ayaan Hirsi Ali
kriticalkai's review against another edition
not really introducing anything you can’t think of yourself.