Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever - The Portable Atheist

This is a fantastic reference, you can dip into it just about anywhere and read...in addition to classic writings which are easily digestible, there are modern contributions to put some things in context .

This is a very fine and comprehensive anthology. Other reviewers have covered it quite well.

My only issue is with the fact that the Kindle edition's Table of Contents does not include the name of the specific author of each selection. This is a ridiculous oversight that hinders usability, and since I don't know where else to go to point it out I'm doing so here. the store needs to correct this and re-send the book to any and all who have bought it for their Kindle.

Not what I was expecting to be honest, which is probably my own fault. I was expecting more of a history and defense of the ideas of Atheism by the author (Hitchens), but instead we get about 95% of the book being a seemingly random collection of past ideas and essays by famous people who happened to be Atheists. Looking at the cover, yes that's basically what it describes, but I was hoping for more original thoughts from the author himself mixed in. If you're just looking for a collection of past ideas on the subject, this is probably the best source in print, but if like me you were hoping for more, you might walk away equally disappointed.

In truth, more of an intellectual survey than I was ready for. Hitchens selects appropriate enough texts, but few of them introduce ideas which are particularly startling at this late date.
I think I would have liked more stylish writing . . . which is to say, more Hitchens. . . than this book provides. Probably my fault: I should have looked for Hitchens the author and not Hitchens the editor.

He has presented hundreds of years of rational struggle with the probable difference between a creator for those of us stuck here on earth and the head-honcho for the rest of the ever-growing universe. It all makes it relatively easy for one to forget what is so obvious still needs treatment by such great minds.

This was an anthology of 47 essays as selected by Christopher Hitchens; essays written by philosophers, scientists, poets and others. Of the 47, 12 were very good and 13 were good. Some (8) were dull and I could not get through them. One of the problems was that all philosophical atheist arguments are similar, so reading several in one collection was redundant. The most interesting ones were the ones by scientists, most notably Darwin, Freud, Sagan and Shermer. Some other interesting authors were Russell, Updike, Gillette and Harris. If you are really interested in atheist writings, this book might be worthwhile. If you are less interested, then you need to ask if the book is worth getting considering that half the essays are not that good. If you are new to atheist writings, then I would suggest Doubt: A History by Jennifer Hecht. In my opinion, the authors I listed above made the book worthwhile.

excellent compendium of basic 'rationalist' and 'enlightenment' views of the world and needed challenge to renewed impulses toward 'theocratic' compromised in our national dialogue ... and a bit fun to see how much 'atheist' views take on a pretty 'religious' conviction of it's rightness.

I like this book, but it's not exactly what I expected. I kind of feel as if I am reading a research project. It's basically just a collection of excerpts from other people's works. Good, but not a smooth read.

The Portable Atheist contained much good material but I doubt it would have much of an impact on the non-believer and certainly not on the believer. Hitchens certainly knows his bible but he takes his quest to educate the non-believer too seriously. A model for such books would be the "Jesus Delusion" which got many of the same points across but didn't seem as much like he was preaching. I think Hitchens was probably just preaching to the choir.

This is my first 'quotable' book. I thought that the book would be a compilation of quotes with some analysis to elaborate on them. The book is literally just quotes relating to various topics. If you are looking for a list of quotes, this is your book. If you are looking for a persuasive argument on the merits of atheism, look elsewhere. I especially like Letter to a Christian Nation and The God Delusion.

For those of us who have begun to have doubts about our beginnings this book is not an essential read. I found it difficult and at times very boring to continue reading. Perhaps it is best to read after years of study and reflection however for us who are just starting to realize that things are not always what they seem from the preachers sermon this is not the book.

As many reviews on the store precede mine, I will offer a sample of the places I found most engaging. Christopher Hitchens received plaudits from some and suspicion from others, even fellow travelers, for what seemed in the wake of his "god Is Not Great" bestseller a cash-in with not as much editing of the inclusions as a rapid assemblage. Too many of the 47 excerpts drag on; a careful compiler would have excised portions and given overviews, while translating passages from other languages and footnoting arcane references as so much material is drawn from sources long ago.

His introduction, on the other hand, pleases. It's a joy to read Hitchens, whether you agree with him or not. Early on his contrast between god-like cats and dogs who treat us like gods (15) establishes his point memorably. His frank question why "semi-stupified peasants in desert regions" receive revelations of their Creator vs. those among the rest of mankind resounds. (18) His humility that whether innate or inexplicable, we can still laugh at our folly of invention humbles us against such faith-claims. (25) As he cites his friend Richard Dawkins, we are all atheists of some sort, for who among us still worships Jupiter? (20) Hitchens thunders against theocracy as the original totalitarianism, the tyranny exerted against anti-theists who take on a more active stance of opposition against the despots determined still alive among us who exact punishment against thought-crime. (23) Hitchens pithily and typically sums up the struggle: "the main enemy we face is 'faith-based.'" (29)

Among the entries, I perked up with Thomas Hobbes' examination of the four causes for the "natural seed" of religion. (45) David Hume's extended foray into the contradictory elements of a deity demanding both praise and terror serves as an early examination of the force that compels our fealty. (61) Then the poet Shelley tackles both the argument by design (89), and the fact that even two centuries ago, "men of genius and science" championed atheism (94) attests to this venerable legacy.

Leslie Stephens' name may be less familiar than the three mentioned above, but he responds to Cardinal Newman's appeal to conscience for belief in God with the plain admission that such an appeal "has no force for anyone who, like most men, does not share his intuitions." (155) Anatole France wittily captures the conundrum at Lourdes, full of crutches "in token of a cure." His friend points "to these trophies of the sick-room and hospital ward" to whisper: "One wooden leg would be more to the point." (168) Emma Goldman reasons how in every age, God has been forced to adopt himself to human affairs, a petty meddler rather than an eternal, awesome force for goodness. (186)

Bertrand Russell earns his allotted span in this anthology. He encourages the dogmatic reader to read papers of opposing views, good advice still. "If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason to think as you do. (275) Carl Sagan wonders logically why God is so visible in the biblical world while so obscure in ours. (318) Dawkins conjures up Mt .Improbable, where the seeker can climb by a gentler back slope towards rational discovery rather than a leap up the front precipice, as a way towards clarity. (387)

Victor Stenger's chapter 37 on cosmic evidence is lengthy but rewarding, as he dismantles arguments. A zero energy universe, rather than a miracle, is exactly its "mean energy density" for one appearing "from an initial state of zero energy, within a small quantum uncertainty" initially necessary. (314) While John Updike's rambling conversation in his novel Roger's Version puzzled me at first, the explanation of how quantum fluctuations or tunnels via Higgs Bosons sparked what became time and space prepared the way helpfully for the learned astronomical discussions by scientists in later pages.

Ibn Warraq's in-depth exegeses from Why I Am Not a Muslim similarly fill out a need here to get away from a steady attack on the Jewish and Christian versions of an Almighty. He also debates the principle within Islam of supersession, a series of revelations urging departure from earlier forms of belief to higher and then single ones. "If there is a natural evolution from polytheism to monotheism, then is there not a natural development from monotheism to atheism? is monotheism doomed to be superseded by a higher form of belief, that is, atheism--via agnosticism, perhaps?" (396) Wise words.

H.L. Mencken, for those contemplating pagan or pantheistic retreats, lists outmoded powers above and below to illustrate the dead voices of forgotten or outmoded forces once called upon by millions of our ancestors. Michael Shermer's discussion of the legend of the Wandering Jew seems superfluous, but Sam Harris' "In the Shadow of God" states a fundamental warning. "Whenever a man imagines that he need only believe the truth of a proposition, without evidence--that unbelievers will go to hell, that Jews drink the blood of infants--he becomes capable of anything." (457) A twist on the Grand Inquisitor of The Brothers Karamazov (the latter tale not here) as to God and morality?

Back to Dawkins, he notes how the Bible fails as a "truly independent guide to moral conduct," serving instead as a "Rorshach test" where people pick out what reflects their own morals and interests. (341) The God in this volume fails, he adds, to ultimately care about his creation. (336) Steven Weinberg seconds this. "But the God of birds and trees would have to be also the God of birth defects and cancer." (372) Salman Rushdie reflects: "Only the stories of 'dead' religions can be appreciated for their beauty. Living religions require much more of you." (381) A.C. Grayling denies that an atheist should label him or herself as one. "The term already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground. A more appropriate term is 'naturalist,' denoting one who takes it that the universe is a natural realm, governed by nature's laws." (475) This spins back to Hitchens' start.

That is, he broadens the other contested term. "Religion is, after all, more than the belief in a supreme being. It is the cult of that supreme being and the belief that his or her wishes have been made known or can be determined." (loc. 393) This may be reductionist for scholars of the philosophy of religion. I aver so, but Hitchens tries to focus on the disputes among atheists over an "intervening" divinity. Men and women will continue, he avers, to create such. "We are unlikely to cease making gods or inventing ceremonies to please them for as long as we are afraid of death, or of the dark, and for as long as we persist in self-centeredness." (loc. 385) One last reminder, from the introduction again. "If anything proves that religion is not just man-made but masculine-made, it is the incessant repetition of rules and taboos governing the sexual life." (loc, 418) Hitchens, for all the scattered evidence marshaled here untidely at times against the presence of such a querulous God, endures as a presence.

Just like the Bible can also be appreciated by non-believers, due to its impact on world history, it is not required to be an atheist to appreciate this anti-religious anthology.

First of all, what I liked about it was that it was actually of a less polemical nature than Hitchens' own writings. Sure, there are polemics in it, but there are also several more personal - vulnerable, if you will - accounts of struggles with belief and unbelief, such as the excerpt from Darwin's autobiography, or James Boswell's (himself a believer) fascinating account of his last interview with David Hume shortly before the latter's death.

The book also does us a service by indirectly reminding us that Karl Marx should not just be judged by the evils of the Gulag Archipelago, but be treated as someone with many noble and worthwhile thoughts.

Other highlights of the book were George Eliot's "On Evangelical Teaching," which I had not read before and which might just as well have been written about TV evangelists of today. Eliot, speaking from more than 150 years in the past, eloquently described my own church background in which I grew up. A fascinating - almost prophetic - experience.

I was also a bit surprised by the amount of very clear statements Albert Einstein had made about his religious position. I had been under the impression before that Einstein's position required quite a bit of interpretation, and that the view of Dawkins and Hitchens was just one among many. The quotes helped me to become undeceived in this regard.

The only critique I have against the anthology is that the inclusion of many of Hitchens' friends seems somewhat preposterous. The historical impact of Lucretius, Hobbes, Spinoza, Marx, Darwin, Twain, Einstein etc. is firmly established, and their inclusion in this anthology is a fitting homage. But to then continue with Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the like turns an anthology of great historical weight into an advertisement for New Atheism.

Perhaps Shermer, Dennet, Harris and their friends will one day all be considered on par with Marx and Einstein, but it's too early to tell. If I wrote a book on essential political figures, I wouldn't move from Alexander the Great and Napoleon to my local governor, either.

I am tempted to take a star off for that. Let's make it half a star. 4.5/5 for "The Portable Atheist."

This is truly a volume of essential readings, except for one glaring omission - The Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine. Atheists do not consider Paine as a legitimate member of the club. A gross error. We tend to forget that Thomas Paine was a man implacably on a one-man mission impossible, a target of both Government and Church, operating in an era when atheism was a capital crime . He was courageous, but not suicidal; his mission was still to be accomplished. He therefore professed himself a Deist, a self-preserving concession that was in essence more abstract and aesthetic rather than religious. On Paine's writings, Thomas Edison remarked, ' What a pity these works are not today the schoolbooks for all children!'.

If you've been looking for a one-stop shop to explain why there are people who do not believe in a creator, this would be the place. Not so much an exposition as an anthology tied together with long introductions by Hitchens, you'll find a lot of perspectives here. Helpfully it includes more than just anti-Christian polemics: there are several reviews of Islamic thought and the Qu'ran which will be instructive and which are sufficiently balanced as not to be one straw man after another.

It could have been better. Another reviewer comments on this book not so much being atheist as anti-theist and I think they've hit something (notice I used "anti-Christian" and not "non-Christian" above). Certainly Hitchens himself is anti-religion and not just non-religious. But if you buy into his argument that religion is A Bad Thing(TM) then you also need to be on the attack. He does, and so he is. And that's fine, or it would be in a different book. But in an anthology it feels more appropriate to let the extracts speak for themselves without layering on top of them. Or at least it does to me.

Those article which he publishes in the front of the book are very difficult to read. Only someone who is skilled in Literature (unlike me) would find this ancient writings of any interest or meaning. I have not completed the book, because I am still stuck in the early pages. Hopefully, it will become easier to read and more interesting.

Don't let the name fool you; this is a rather large book, the size of a substantial hardback, but it is a paperback. I suppose it is marginally portable, but I'm not about to carry it around.

It's a compilation of some of the most interesting thoughts on atheism over time, beginning with Lucretius, Omar Khayyam, Thomas Hobbes, Benedict de Spinoza, David Hume . . . all the way up to Salman Rushdie and Sam Harris. Some favorites are here, like George Eliot, Charles Darwin, Mark Twain and George Orwell; and some I'd never heard of before but like now that I've read, John Betjeman, Philip Larkin, Elizabeth Anderson and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

A random sample of quotes I highlighted as I read:

". . . the working assumption is that we should have no moral compass if we were not somehow in thrall to an unalterable and unchallengeable celestial dictatorship. What a repulsive idea!" Christopher Hitchens in the introduction

"Superstition, then, is engendered, preserved, and fostered by fear." Benedict de Spinoza

". . . the most genuine method of serving the divinity is by promoting the happiness of his creatures." David Hume

"It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations." David Hume

"Upon the whole, then, it appears, that no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof." David Hume

"He found it impossible to believe that a world so full of evil was the work of an Author combining infinite power with perfect goodness and righteousness." John Stuart Mill, speaking of his father

"The world would be astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its brightest ornaments . . . are complete skeptics in religion." John Stuart Mill

"Given, a man with moderate intellect, a moral standard not higher than the average, some rhetorical affluence and great glibness of speech . . . [w]here is that Goshen of mediocrity in which . . . platitudes will be accepted as wisdom . . .? Let such a man become an evangelical preacher." George Eliot

"[T]o theologians we may apply what Sancho Panza says of the bachelors of Salamanca, that they never tell lies--except when it suits their purpose." George Eliot

"The truth is, no miracle can, from the nature of things, be stated as an established fact." Anatole France

"In principle the man of science is ill-qualified to verify a supernatural occurrence. Such verification presupposes a complete and final knowledge of nature, which he does not possess, and never will possess, and which no one ever did possess in this world." Anatole France

"The Christian Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes." Mark Twain

"What is characteristic of illusions is that they are derived from human wishes. . . religious doctrines . . . all of them are illusions and insusceptible of proof. No one can be compelled to think them true, to believe in them. Some of them are so improbable . . . that we may compare them . . . to delusions." Sigmund Freud

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Albert Einstein

"I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." Albert Einstein

"There is as much difference between a collection of mentally free citizens and a community molded by modern methods of propaganda as there is between a heap of raw materials and a battleship." Bertrand Russell

"So, considering this range of alternatives, one thing that comes to my mind is how striking it is that when someone has a religious-conversion experience, it is almost always to the religion or one of the religions that are mainly believed in his or her community." Carl Sagan

"There are lots of charismatic people who have all sorts of mutually exclusive conversion experiences. They can't all be right. Some of them have to be wrong. Many of them have to be wrong. It's even possible that all of them are wrong. We cannot depend entirely on what people say. We have to look at what the evidence is." Carl Sagan

"That is, if your belief in God is supported by miracles, Kung [Hans Kung, author of Does God Exist?, 1980] will endorse them for you; but if you find them an obstacle to belief, he will explain them away!" J. L. Mackie

"This divine command view can also lead people to accept, as moral, requirements that have no discoverable connection . . . with human purposes . . . it can foster a tyrannical, irrational morality." J. L. Mackie

"A prevalent fallacy is the assumption that a proof of an afterlife would also be a proof of the existence of a deity. This is far from being the case." A. J. Ayer

"I really do mean thank goodness! There is a lot of goodness in this world, and more goodness every day, and this fantastic human-made fabric of excellence is genuinely responsible for the fact that I am alive today." Daniel C. Dennett

"Intelligent design has been unkindly described as creationism in a cheap tuxedo." Richard Dawkins

"Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do." Richard Dawkins

"It is not for nothing that one of the symptoms in a developing psychosis, noted and described by psychiatrists, is 'religiosity.'" Ian McEwan

"[T]he retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete." Steven Weinberg

"If there is a natural evolution from polytheism to monotheism, then is there not a natural development from monotheism to atheism?" Ibn Warnaq

"[R]eligions survive mainly because they brainwash the young." A. C. Grayling

Christopher Hitchens' The Portable Atheist contains 47 selections from some very famous and non-famous people on the value of atheism as well as a 14 page fiery introduction by Hitchens. Hitchens prefaces each selection with pertinent information about the author and relevant information about his views.
Some of the writers are Benedict de Spinoza, David Hume, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, George Orwell and John Updike.
Spinoza, for example, describes the pernicious and stymying effect of superstition. Superstition "is engendered, preserved, and fostered by fear." It is based on "a dim notion of God." People are afraid of "the anger of the gods." When they think that some event is unusual, they mistake their phantom ideas, their "superstition for religion, (and) account it impious not to avert the evil (they think they see) with prayer and sacrifice." This occurs so frequently that "one might think (that) Nature (is) as mad as themselves."
Darwin, for example, wrote that he thought that the idea of divine miracles is "incredible." He was convinced that "the old argument (proving that God exists) from design in nature...fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered." He discusses whether there is more happiness or misery in the world and decides that it is the former because if the world was overly cruel, animal and people would stop having children. Yet the presence of so much cruelty in the world persuaded him that an intelligent deity does not exist.
Some people dislike Hitchens' strong frequently insulting language and his descriptions of his adversaries in his introduction and other books. He calls them "fools," "stupid," inept." He calls the Archbishop of Canterbury "sheep-faced" in this volume. This is the cleric who claimed, as did many others, that the recent flood that destroyed thousands of homes in one part of England was a punishment inflicted by God for homosexuality throughout England.
Is this what religion should be teaching? Could a sane person really believe that God would punish innocent people for what they think another person commits? Shouldn't clergy recognize the basic teachings of science about natural climatic occurrences? Aren't the clergy in this instance, and in many others, misleading the people that are depending upon their advice? Who is the sinner here?
Rabbi Abraham-Yitzhak ha-Cohen Kook (1865-1935), the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi in Palestine, contended that humans should be religious and follow the doctrines of their religion but they can learn from atheism. They need to observe, examine, ponder, think critically, be skeptical, deny foolish ancient superstitions, reject traditions based on only blind faith, see the facts of this world, and join hands with all people of all faiths in improving themselves and society.
Thus, this book is good for religious and nonreligious people. Religious people should not allow the book to wean them from religion, but from ungrounded primitive misconceptions that are associated with religious belief.

my single comment, in addition to the many positive reviews and cogent reasons to purchase and read this book, is that hitchen's marvelously literate selection documents how really long and arduous has been the struggle of reason and common sense against the depredations of superstition and dogma. the variety of voices, testimonies, evidentiary narratives and philosophical reasons collected here reflect, in their diversity and clarity, the outlines of the enormous crimes inflicted on humanity by monotheistic, salvationist, sin spewing and soul idolizing christianity and islamism. many selections make ideal reading to children, and others will challenge the curiosity and independent thinking of adolescents. but every adult should be familiar with the many individuals who stood up to superstition when it still had the power to stigmatize, ostracize, condemn, torture and execute the unbeliever, launch witch hunts, pogroms and crusades and bend all to submission of inquisitions and thought police. while these practices primarily endure only in parts of the middle east and africa, they are backdrop to the enormous courage of those who faced down intimidation to decry the power of the almighty false god, and laid the groundwork for spiritual and intellectual freedoms we take for granted today.

The Portable Atheist contains over forty-five selections from various freethinking heavyweights.

The compilation includes material from the following writers: Lucretius, Omar Khayyam, Thomas Hobbes, Benedict De Spinoza, David Hume, James Bowell, Percy Bysshe Shelley, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, George Eliot, Charles Darwin, Leslie Stephen, Anatole France, Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, Thomas Hardy, Emma Goldman, H.P. Lovecraft, Carl Van Doren, H.L. Mencken, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, George Orwell, John Bentjemen, Chapman Cohen, Bertrand Russell, Philip Larkin, Martin Gardner, Carl Sagan, John Updike, J.L. Mackie, Michael Shermer, A.J. Ayer, Daniel Dennett, Charles Templeton, Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Elizabeth Anderson, Penn Jillette, Ian McEwan, Steven Weinberg, Salman Rushdie, Ibn Warraq, Sam Harris, A.C. Grayling and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Taken together, these selections compose a great book that exhibits the spirit of agnostic/atheistic thought.

Bravo, Mr. Hitchens! Five stars for your compilation!

"The God of birds and trees is also the God of birth defects and cancer." That very devastating quote is from Steven Weinberg, author of one of the 47 essays in this wonderful book. This is a rare anthology where almost every essay was worth reading. I enjoyed Elizabeth Anderson's essay very much, as she is one of the few writers in the book I had not heard of before. My personal favorite was Carl Sagan's essay, where he makes the very important point that one must first define God before discussing whether he exists. Many religious people think Einstein was a believer(alas, some in my family), because he used the term God. There are a number of quotes from Einstein in the book showing quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God, but used the word God as a metaphor for the laws of nature.

My only complaint about The Portable Atheist was that there was nothing by the other side. An essay by a former nonbeliever like,say, Francis Collins as to why he became religious would have been a valuable addition. Notwithstanding this criticism, the book is terrific and I hope some not-so-fervent believers pick it up as well. They just might come around to our side.

So much of this book is moving, personal and witty. It includes a brilliant article by Michael Shermer [...] about how God made it look like evolution happened in such a convincing way to test our faith. Daniel Dennett wrote about how an accident left him close to death (obviously, he recovered, thanks to a caring medical staff) and what this says about human goodness. Old and unexpected writers, such as Mark Twain and Omar Khayyam, are fascinating reading. These present facets of atheism that many of us wouldn't have thought of.
If you think Hitch et al present a "straw man" view of religion that is childish, irrational and counterproductive, do some research and you'll see that a lot of people in the U.S. do believe this way.

It is very easy to understand the reasoning behind Christopher Hitchens' own ideas on religion after you've gone through the parade of fascinating works in this book. Intertwined with very subdued--perhaps an understatement, having his latest works in recent memory--commentaries from Hitchens, you are transported through the ages of reason and unreason, starting with the fascinating thoughts of the Roman philosopher Lucretius (highly influenced by the then "heretically" denounced Epicureans of Greece) around the, said, birth of Jesus of Nazareth, and ending in the 20th century, with Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud among the most notable luminaries.

What is most interesting in the end, however, is perhaps not an obvious conclusion, have you previously been impressed with Cristopher Hitchens' own writings. For, as good a writer as Hitchens truly is, it becomes very palpable how he, along with most authors of the recent past, absolutely pales in comparison to the grandeur of thought, wit, faculties of reason and vivid imagination of these masters of our collective literary heritage.

This book, which is very appropriately named, should be mandatory reading for all humans out there, who are the slightest bit concerned with their own existence, and how they relate to this world and its continuously morphing state of affairs. This world--the only one that exists.

I think that Hitchens did a remarkable job of picking the very best anti-religious/intellectual writings available, from Spinoza to Dawkins. Although I had read a couple of the excerpted works in full before, there is much more that I can delve into at some future date. Recommended to anyone with even the least bit of curiosity or skepticism.

Great compilation with a lot of variety in style and content. Spans several centuries as well and includes some foreign writers in translation. Like any anthology, some texts are better than others. My only complaint is that there are no texts from Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson.

It gladdens my heart to see such an array of books on non-belief now available to the general public. Local book stores display shelves and shelves of titles. Finally we are standing up to the tyranny of religious belief! Christopher Hitchen's compendium is a welcome addition to the literature. His introduction itself is worth the price of the book. My one complaint is that a few of the essays could have been pared down. The Karl Marx piece, for example, goes on for pages about the contemporary political situation in Germany and that part is not really relevant -- but this is a minor quibble. It is instructive to read the famous quip about religion as the "opium of the people" in context. There are so many gems of insight, wisdom and humor to be enjoyed here, such as this one from John Stuart Mill: "The world would be astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its brightest ornaments...are complete sceptices in religion". Christopher Hitchens is one of our brightest ornaments.

As an atheist, I've found this to be an indispensable reference of the history and extent of atheism and freethought in history. For the atheist, it provides confirmation and philosophical perspective; for the agnostic, it gives insight and understanding of why its okay to question, doubt and inquire; and for the theist, it provides insight to the mind and worldview of the atheist and perhaps sheds light on why the so-called "new atheists" aren't really all that "new." As a collection of works, this book should be on the shelf of anyone interested in atheism, religion, philosophy, or freethought.

I found this book to be less repetitive than many anthologies of atheist writings. It includes pieces encompassing literature, science, religion and philosophy, as well as a smattering of politics and economics. It's not a quick read by any means, nor is it for the less-educated layman, but I suspect most readers will tend toward the college-educated anyway. I think it presents a more well-balanced view of those of us who are agnostic or atheist, and though it certainly includes some angry passages, it is not focused on an angry or resentful approach, as many atheist works are. Worth a look.

Here you have an excellent compilation of atheist writings. A wide sampling of intelligent writers and deep thinkers who espouse atheism. Whether you agree or not, these writers make so many valid and intriguing points that this book is an essential read for anyone who feels that it is imperative that we understand where religion becomes harmful and shrugs away reason. Religion has destroyed so much good in this world. It has threatened a few of the writers in this anthology, in fact. If we are to move forward as a species, the arguments of atheists have to be considered well.

I love this book. You can come back to it often. It has so much to read and contemplate, that you MUST BUY it.

Great read. Compiled by a greater man. R.I.P. Hitch.

Christopher Hitchens has made quite a name for himself with his National Book Award nominated book, God is Not Great, and before the paperback edition is even out, Hitchens returns with an edited collection of "essential readings for the nonbeliever." The Portable Atheist may not necessarily be that "portable," as it is a thick and oversized paperback; but is nevertheless a unique collection of Atheist writings taken from the history of the written word.

The collection begins with a lengthy introduction from Hitchens as he waxes rhapsodic about the growth of Atheism as a belief, the futility of religion, and how it has caused more harm than good. The first piece comes from Titus Lucretius Carus in his De Rerum Naturum (On the Nature of Things), a Roman philosopher who lived in the first century BCE. Lucretius discusses the theory of atoms and how everything is composed of these minute building blocks; an everyday fact of life now, but something that was laughed at and mocked for much of history. In the brief passage, Lucretius speaks of devastating storms and catastrophic events not attributable to the gods, but of something quite natural and ordinary; he even hints that there is no afterlife. Mark Twain, a staunch evolutionist and ever a satirist of religious faith has this to say: "Unless evolution, which has been a truth ever since the globes, suns, and planets of the solar system were but wandering films of meteor dust, shall reach a limit and become a lie, there is but one fate in store for him."

Emma Goldman, a Russian-born anarchist who became a champion of civil liberties and labor rights in the United States, who was deported to Bolshevik Russia in 1919, was a strong voice in the early Atheist movement: "Atheism in its negation of gods is at the same time the strongest affirmation of man, and through man, the eternal yea to life, purpose, and beauty." H. L. Mencken who worked against religious fundamentalists trying to ban alcohol and the teaching of evolution, and was made famous for his accounts of the Scopes "monkey trial" in Tennessee in 1925, in this amusing piece asks: "Where is the graveyard of dead gods?" For the numberless amount of gods throughout the history of humanity haven't survived - some completely forgotten, others barely recollected - and his final almost solemn comment is: "All are dead." Penn Jillette of Penn and Teller fame offers an insightful piece about being certain in his Atheist beliefs and how it is important to use the time we have now and not to waste time on thinking about the afterlife: "Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O, and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have."

The renowned Atheist proponents are all featured in The Portable Atheist: Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel C. Dennett; as are authors like H. P. Lovecraft, George Orwell, George Eliot, Ian McEwan, and John Updike; so are poets such as Percy Blysshe Shelley and Philip Larkin; as well as scientists like Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin and Carl Sagan. It is a fascinating and captivating collection of Atheist writings that one can simply pick up at any point, wherever one may be, and pick a reading of their choosing - whatever length or format they wish.

The final piece is from bestselling author of Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who "escaped" Islam and its oppressive faith; she offers up this sobering outlook: "The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is Atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more."

Originally written on April 5th 2008 ©Alex C. Telander.

For over 500 book reviews and exclusive author interviews, go to [...]

This is a very important book, not because it actually disproves the existence of god, but because, as a book of essays, it provides at least some of the thoughts of many important thinkers on the topic of religion. It isn't really a Christopher Hitchens book. It's a book of all the authors that are represented here, and the idea is to pique your interest so you will go out and read all those authors in their entirety, thus improving your understanding of a great many things, not just religion.

Many objections to the existence of god are raised by modern scientists (such as cosmologist Victor Stenger, neuroscientist Sam Harris, Astronomer Carl Sagan and biologist Richard Dawkins), ancient and modern philosophers (Lucretius, Bertrand Russell and Daniel Dennett), authors (Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hrsi Ali), political philosophers (Karl Marx and Thomas Hobbes), and that's barely scratching the surface. This is an excellent collection of very important thinkers, and although you won't agree with everything written here, it is (I think) undeniable that the people writing are pretty sharp.

Hitchens prefaces his book by telling us that the prehistory of our species is ridden with episodes of nightmarish ignorance and calamity, for which religion is used to identify not just the wrong explanation but the wrong culprit as well. The few men of science and reason and medicine had all they could do to keep their libraries and laboratories intact, or their very lives safe from harm.

Today's typical "justification" for religion involves charitable or humanitarian work - obviously this says nothing about the veracity of the belief systems involved. All religions must, at their core, look forward to the end of this world; atheists, on the other hand argue that this world is all we have and that it is our duty to make the most of it.

It is one thing, per Hitchens, to believe that the magnificence of the natural order strongly implies an ordering force; quite another to say this creative force cares for our human affairs, and it is interested in with whom we have sex and how, as well as the outcome of battles and wars (and even athletic contests). Even accepting Jesus' birth, it still does not prove he was more than one among many shamans and magicians of the day.

Einstein took the view that the miracle is that there are no miracles.

Everybody is an atheist in saying that there is a god in which he does not believe - atheists simply go one step further and add another god to not believe in.

Sadly, there are the seemingly endless wars and persecutions that go on in the name of religion. It is almost comical that as the Iranians pursue the imminent return of the Twelfth Imam and reinforce their apocalyptic talk by acquiring doomsday weaponry, Jewish settlers hope, by stealing the land of others in accordance with biblical directions, to bring Armageddon in their own way, while their chief backers (American evangelical fundamentalists) are simultaneously trying to teach pseudo-science, criminalize homosexuality, forbid stem-cell research, and display Mosaic law in courtrooms. At the same time, the Pope maintains that condoms are worse than AIDS.

The bulk of "The Portable Atheist" consists of readings from mostly eminent minds, going back to the early Greeks. My favorites were Elizabeth Anderson, Bertrand Russell, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Summarizing, the biggest take-aways of this book were to show how tenuous the belief in religion is, the almost laughable inconsistencies involve, how it has blocked progress through the ages, and the almost unlimited misery it has brought to mankind - throughout the ages.

This is an excellent collection of essays..especially for the price. Nearly every selection is available online, but you just can't beat a great compendium of writing to fit in your backpack..and let's face it: the feel of paper is a nice variation to sliding your finger across a semi-oily plastic screen... Hitchens provides brief but memorable introductions. What I like most, however, is that this collection pulls from a wide variety of fields/authors. Voices from many perspectives are heard. The court of reason makes its case quite well here. =)

This book is an excellent overview of different authors works on athiesm and religious studies. I really enjoyed this book and found it to be very helpful in finding ways to further pursue other books by different authors in this compilation. Very well put together. Highly recommended

This collection of writings by a diverse group of thinkers is well worth the price of admission. This is a valuable work that one is likely to refer back to often.

Included are essays by: Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, H.P. Lovecraft, George Orwell, Martin Gardner, Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Penn Jillette, Salmon Rushdie, and Sam Harris.

I highly recommend this book.

--Guy P. Harrison, author of

Race and Reality: What Everyone Should Know About Our Biological Diversity

and

50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God

This is a very comprehensive collection of essays on atheism and related topics, from ancient writers to the present. I enjoyed all of them except one: the essay on Hegel and Germany by Karl Marx. This one was incomprehensible and I don't think it should have been included. It's concern for the Germany and German people of the 19th century is too time specific, and the writing is vague and arcane, in my view. Also, what's the deal with the randomly italicized words and phrases?
I'd recommend skipping this one and enjoy the rest of the book!

The Publishers Weekly Review says, "It could be that Hitchens and his cast of nonbelievers are preaching to the choir and their message is tired and spent." How ironic, given the 'outbreak' of the Tea Party with its religious whackos stuffing their right-wing evangelical view of religion and God down our collective throats. Hitchens' work is MORE relevant than ever!

It's wonderful seeing well written essays providing affirmation of much of the rational of my own atheism developed as a child. What's even better is reading arguments and history that I was not aware of. My one issue with the Kindle edition is that about every 4 pages or so there are letters dropped from some of the words.

Christopher "Hitch" Hitchens is the literate jackanapes of the New Atheism, an unofficial affiliation that includes Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, A.C. Grayling, Victor Stenger, PZ Myers, and others. Hitch once quipped that Dawkins had been invited, along with him, to present atheism so that the audience could also get a more moderate view of the position. (If you don't know why that's funny, read Dawkins's "The God Delusion," which is uncompromisingly immoderate.) Hitch's book, "god is Not Great" cemented his reputation as the Sweeney Todd of antitheism, for whom words are razors and arrogant ignorance is the prey. This was the guy, after all, who several years ago wrote a slashing diatribe against Mother Teresa.

The introduction that Hitchens writes for this volume is just excellent. Funny, barbed, witty...a real showcase of his rhetorical skill. And the selections made for this book are uniformly excellent. It's easy to quibble that this should have been included or that could have been left out, but on the whole, this volume represents a compendium of some of the best literature in atheology. From Hume to Penn Jillette, Hobbes to Salman Rushdie, some of the most brilliant, sharpest criticisms of the notion of gods and the practices of religion are represented.

I know too many believers to think that something as mere as reading a great many genius writers making mountains of sense could change their minds; but certainly this tome presents a substantial challenge to easy assumptions, and a buffet banquet for thought. It is a tribute to this book that it winds up on the favorites lists of several bloggers, including one who defines himself as a "secular Catholic Buddhist": [...]

This is a wonderful collection of essays written by many of the brightest minds in history that explores the revelance of religious thought through the ages and its effects on world civilizations down to the present. Belief in a living God, miracles, life after death, heaven, hell are challenged by scientific fact. The conclusion is that there is probably not a God. However, regardless of ones personal beliefs, this is a must read to appreciate how the worlds religions came to be and how they have changed over the centuries in response to the discoveries of science.

Even when I disagree with Hitchens, I can't help but appreciate his prose which rises up to form a crescendo of perfect logic.
Here, Hitchens makes a case for logic, for science, but paradoxically enough, for the love of humanity through atheisism. The Portable Atheist is a tour de force for sure, but if you believe Fred Flintstone roamed with the dinosaurs, you may be in for a shock.

This is a wonderful collection of readings by nonbelievers and freethinkers, compiled for the person who wants more than zippy quotes, or who is looking for the context of those quotes. Over forty authors (including Hobbes, Spinoza, Karl Marx, George Eliot, up to present day Harris, Dawkins, etc.) are represented by almost 500 pages of text, with enough of an excerpt to give a feeling for their work.

I thought it was pretty amazing to read that even as far back as 55 B.C., people had these thoughts: Lucretius. He even argued that the world can be accounted for in terms of atoms that are in perpetual motion. 55 B.C., that's pretty cool. Jumping forward in time, the piece by Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1811) is way more explicit than I expected. He was expelled from Oxford and Cambridge universities, but his text survived. Dawkins, Dennett and Weinberg were inspiring. After reading a bunch though, I got a little bit depressed, because they were mostly about the bad aspects of religion, less about the good aspects of atheism. I want to see the sun. I see the sun, it's right there. Look, look! Maybe an idea for the next edition.

Particularly the bits by Bertrand Russell, which you can read online for free. Look out though, religious fundamentalists will take this and burn it if they catch a glimpse. I'm already on my second copy! Thanks Warped Tour 2008!

Let me begin by stating that I am not an atheist. However, this is a great anthology on matters of faith (or lack thereof) by some of the best historical nonbelievers. I'd advise anyone reading it to jump straight into the sections on Hume. Hume is, in my opinion, the most powerful atheist. That's not to say that one should not read the other parts.

This is an excellant collection of articles from a wide range of fields of study that support the atheistic world viewpoint. The Atheistic Community of Topeka(ACT) book club read this book and we all remarked how well the secection of readings were in terms of regarding atheism from the arts to the sciences.
Sanford Pomerantz, M.D.

Well documented, well argumented, this book put you into a logical frame and stimulates your skeptic mind.
just finished reading it with great pleasure and plenty of new ideas and thoughts, the book exposes, questions and clarifies a lot of issues (that I only thought very superficially) although English is my third language I found this book easy to understand
I reckon this is a "must read" for anyone that has doubts about religions, and his/her faith, I strongly recommend it

This book is a great read for anyone who likes to ask themselves questions and has quest for intellectual advancement. I read this book in 24h once getting it and I must admit it is great. It is not full of opinions, it just states facts which are hard to ignore. Now if you are already full of certainties then this may now be for you.

Well documented, well argumented, this book put you into a logical frame and stimulates your skeptic mind.
just finished reading it with great pleasure and plenty of new ideas and thoughts, the book exposes, questions and clarifies a lot of issues (that I only thought very superficially) although English is my third language I found this book easy to understand
I reckon this is a "must read" for anyone that has doubts about religions, and his/her faith, I strongly recommend it

This book is a great read for anyone who likes to ask themselves questions and has quest for intellectual advancement. I read this book in 24h once getting it and I must admit it is great. It is not full of opinions, it just states facts which are hard to ignore. Now if you are already full of certainties then this may now be for you.

Christopher Hitchens' latest work is quite impressive. However I think that the title is a bit misleading. It definitely is not something I would define as "portable", the tome being several hundred pages in length.

Other than that, it's great.

Just wish there was a more "Portable" version of this one.

Great book but I suspect books in this genre, either for or against atheism, are only read by those already in agreement with the author. So much for debate. I guess with the phrase "Great book" my position is exposed. What has always puzzled me about christianity is that it insists that unlike the prophets of other monotheisms, it's prophet is divine, that he is a god. And the first 5 of the 10 commandments command that you believe this and behave accordingly or else. Also puzzling is why christianity thinks this control is so necessary. Mohammad and Buddha both insisted they were not gods. Instead of commandments with a capital "C" Buddha suggested: "Be a lamp unto yourselves.
Believe nothing on the faith of traditions,
......
Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it.
Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past.
Do not believe what you yourself have imagined,
persuading yourself that a God inspires you.
Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests.
After examination, believe what you yourself have tested
and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto. Me, given the choice I'll stick with character building instead of obedience. The correctness of the second half of the 10 commandments doesn't require a GOD and lightning bolts (or was that just Hollywood), they are just life's practicalities, like drive on the right in USA and the left in England, social lubricants.
More of a rant then a review but if you lean my way this book will make you more comfortable with such thoughts. If you lean the other way, may GOD help you for you aren't going to learn how to do it yourself

In a world being swamped with 6000-year earth age advocates and mind-numbing religious attacks on science, with some U.S. presidential candidates in the lead, The Portable Atheist is an island of sanity and respite from irrationality and the unending barrage of misinformation from "believers". From the Taliban to the fundamentalist and evangelical command posts, whether on "Christian" TV and radio or the minaret, temple, or store front hotbeds, common sense, science, and rational thinking have never been so daily assaulted. Revel in the words of those who have fought the good fight against Bronze Age morality and intellectual dysfunction. The Portable Atheist is a companion you will want by your side. Great reading, instructive, and, most of all, provides hope that clear thinking might just have a chance.

This is a fantastic collection. For anyone just discovering their atheism I highly recommend this book - it brings together writings by atheists or agnostics over the last 2000 or so years, making some incredibly compelling arguments. I'm only halfway through at the moment, but I especially love Mark Twain's discussion of the fly.

Hitch's intro is worth the price of the book alone!! The brilliant essays are the icing on the cake. The Portable Atheist is a must for anyone (religious or not) that is even mildly concerned with understanding the secular POV.

Some of the essays in this book were written by philosophers and as such they tend to be quite dry and boring. Most of the book contains witty articles that are quite easy to read.
All in all the book supports my belief that god, the tooth fairy and santa claus are equally fictitious and the bible is no better than grimm's fairy tales.

A great collection edited by my favorite author Christopher Hitchens. I'll use this great book to combat religious oppression and craziness. Excellent compilation for people like me who would like to take the fight to the religious fanatics.

Great collection of secular quotes and articles from books and other publishings. A great piece of weaponry for the non-religious and I really enjoy flipping through the pages looking for inspiration.

Monsieur Christopher Hitchens has performed a necessary intellectual work of mercy. Once humankind desists from its vulgar notion of deity, it can begin the tiresome duties of keeping as much of us as possible alive.

Since we are competently trained in ancient Semitic and Ind-European languages and theoretical mathematics, we twin brothers know who has been doing the heavy lifting of keeping humanity alive and prosperous. It certainly is not the dolts in political, religious or military systems (they who live off the backs of the common people).

Mr. Hitchens has given us fresh fruit from the tree of 'real' knowledge to advance the survivability of our species. Professor Dawkins and to-be Dr. Sam Harris (neuro-science technical background) have enriched the soil of these trees in the enclosed orchard of learning.

If we presently do not get beyond this vulgar Bronze Age duplicity of rulership and priestcraft, we will be doomed to extinction as a species in our niche biosphere, or filmy skin of Earth!

The fools in religion merely have to adduce one rare, slender piece of evidence for the existence of deity. Perchance, our archeologists will find the finger of Yahweh on Mt. Sinai who impertinently gave us the incompetent Ten Commandments (Do not read in Egyptian Hieroglyphics the Book of the Dead for the 'real' 42 commandments---from whence the Hebrews shamefully and slavishly stole!) to bolster their puny claims.

Right ideas for the right time!

Respectfully,

John E.D.P. Malin,
Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer
James F.D.P. Malin,
Vice Chairman of the Board & Chief Research & Development Officer
Informatica Corporation [A.D. 1984-2008]
Executive Division
P.O. Drawer 460
Cecilia, Louisiana 70521-0460

"Fathers of the Silicon Bayou"

Contact Information: [email protected]

P.S. Master the higher mathematics of Algebraic Geometry, it is the genuine and authentic language of global human survival; presently, it is the mathematics adduced by our structured and unstructured data systems running our economic business structures or organizations.

--

The idea that the total public scientific datum is prone to crystallization within the mindstream of a functional interpreter as honest belief in the irreality of the supernatural is the memetic fallacy (the wack wrapper, antimoreality, unfactual selection, true malefiction, neophobe's fun and exciting new crush, I'm>sick manoeuvre, missed-leading heathen's fiendingest lebensphenomenologie, intentional deficit, intelligence failure, for them: somehow too-ready being-un-ready-to-hand, vainglorious needs' IV, Janjaweed dro, waterless fountain, rotten apple that should have been left behind, stipend of bad-faith, nihlargesse, "I didn't" ... the devolutionary gnome's playhouse and favoured hiding spot of Earth's most vulgar and detestable confabulists) par excellence.

I would like to know who told Hitchens that, when compiling a collection of writings about a belief, he should only include positive articles and nothing that contradicts the view. In his own book, god is Not Great, he states, "Some of these excursions to the bookshelf or the lunch or the gallery [undergone by atheists] will obviously, if they are serious, bring us into contract with belief and believers, from the great devotional painters and composers to the works of Augustine, Acquinas, Maimonides, and Newman."

Augustine, Acquinas, Maimonides, and Newman are notably absent from this text. I give it three stars because almost every article in this text is legitimately worth reading, but there should simply be more comparative work if it's going to be what it claims to be. I recommend reading Peterson's anthology on Philosophy of Religion instead for a more comprehensive outlook on the subject. It's more expensive, but it's worth it.

http://www.the store.com/Philosophy-Religion-Selected-Michael-Peterson/dp/0195393597/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276666215&sr=8-1

Yes if witty words were responsible for creating an objective universe then Hitchens would be god. But witty words and subtle phraseology is simply a mechanism satan uses to deceive the unscientific [evolutionists], irrational and gullible amongst us. Or should I rather say the God haters around us who would rather live for self than God, those who would rather choose sin than to surrender!
Hitchens, Hawking, Dawkins and the other 150 reviewers understands nothing about the nature of philosophy or reality. And how can this Christian [I] make such a bold or objectively true statement? Because the atheist has no final authority in the universe concerning all matters of faith and practice, He can only borrow presuppositions from the Christian worldview to make his own irrational and satanic worldview seem more plausible. Thus every atheist is a thief as well.
Has any atheist refuted Dr Craigs moral argument for the existence of God. Dr William Lane Craig makes a spectacle out of atheism and atheists. Every atheist is also deep down inside a believer in God; he merely suppresses that objective fact in unrighteousness as God states in His Word, the King James Bible.
Presently every atheist is portable only because he can use the legs God gave him, he can only reason because God has given him a mind to reason with, but things will drastically change in the next life! There, in absolute blackness, he will be stationary, suffering the wrath of God for all of eternity. What a deal. And who said atheism doesn't have something positive to offer its religious followers!

I just love the PW review of this collection; it unintentionally but so smartly and clearly demonstrates the problem of those who profess to have "faith." The reviewer claims to love the collection, the authors, etc., but remains critical because the specific content of the collection, and by implication, atheists in general, reject a form of fundamentalism or faith that "intelligent believers" have long since discarded. Surely the very concept "intelligent believer" (at least those words put together in that order) are an oxymoron; to the contrary, anyone of intelligence would not believe because "taking it on faith" means believing in something without evidence, substantiation or support. Therefore, those who profess such belief do so without intelligence! Moreover, by implication, such a person cannot be critical of someone who "believes" in, say, the most absurd thing the imagination can concock, say, the tooth fairy or the easter bunny. It is time to take the next step in evolution and jettison the mystical explanation ("god") now that science has finally progressed and triumphed.

It's difficult to figure out what Christopher Hitchens means when he subtitles this collection 'Essential' Readings for the Nonbeliever. If by 'essential' he means the most rigorous but still accessible defenses of atheism available, the book is mistitled. There's actually very little here that's intellectually meaty, although much of it is tasty finger food. Some of the pieces are more rhetorical broadsides than anything else (for example, Emma Goldman's 'Philosophy of Atheism,' Mencken's 'Memorial Service,' Dawkins' 'Gerin Oil' and 'Atheists for Jesus,' and Penn Jillette's 'There Is No God'). Moreover, even when Hitchens does include selections from especially rigorous thinkers, they tend to focus on religion rather than theism (the selections from Hobbes and Sagan especially illustrate this, as does the flip and interminable one from Bertrand Russell). But to give Hitchens his due, other selections are strong (Carl van Doren's 'Why I Am an Unbeliever,' Dawkins' 'Why There Almost Certainly Is No God,' Dennett's 'A Working Definition of Religion,' and Steven Weinberg's 'What About God?').

If, however, by 'essential' Hitchens means some of the best known polemics against God-belief, then the title is a bit more accurate (although one wonders why influential polemical defenders of atheism such as Baron d'Holbach, Robert Ingersoll, Mikhail Bukanin, Vladimir Lenin, or Mao Tse Tung didn't make the cut). Most of the essays don't argue so much as insist, usually in stark binary terms, that atheism is right and theism is perniciously wrong. Many of them, as I've already mentioned, tend to conflate religion with God-belief, going after the former and neglecting the latter. And almost all of them, while guaranteed to tickle the atheist and infuriate an insecure theist, fail to provide good arguments for their positions. But then this isn't surprising, given that the editor of the collection extraordinarily compares Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Aquinas to Osama bin Laden in his entertaining but injudicious introduction (p. xxiv). When it comes to religious belief, Hitchens is an angry bulldog, and bulldogs rarely possess subtlety.

Readers who wish to move beyond essential polemics to essential arguments might consider The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, The Impossibility of God, and The Improbability of God, all edited by Michael Martin. S. T. Joshi is the editor of Atheism, a collection of essays (many of which Hitchens seems to have lifted wholecloth for The Portable Essays) also worth examining. Louise Antony's Philosophers Without God is a well-written and insightful collection. George Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God is a rigorous defense of atheism. Like Joshi's anthology, though, Smith's book focuses exclusively on philosophical arguments for atheism and neglects more recently crafted scientific ones. Finally, Michel Onfray's recent Atheist Manifesto offers a good introduction to atheism Continental-style.

In view of my preceding title it may be wondered why I marked the book for three stars. I did it in recognition of the author's writing skill and erudition, of his somewhat justified criticism of dogma--especially today's violent expressions of it--and a little because of pity for his evidently sincerely misguided hatreds.

It seems for me unnecessary to go into the body of the book, which I haven't read and is featuring other authors, the reasonably long Introduction sufficing, in addition to comments on the Acknowledgments and the dedication, at which I start (unmarked page v).

The dedication is to a now deceased Holocaust survivor, and as a survivor myself I am thoroughly appalled by the twisting by Mr. Hitchens into "moral fortitude" some unfortunately very dismaying remarks by that survivor. That survivor, an atheist, complained for his own reasons about an old fellow-prisoner in Auschwitz because of the latter's praying ("thanking God because he has not been chosen [for] the gas-chamber" at the time), the survivor concluding with: "If I was God, I would spit at [the man's] prayer."

Thank God he wasn't God. He also wrote, on being tempted to pray when perceiving the imminence of death (there is something to the saying there are no atheists in foxholes): "A prayer...would have been...blasphemous, obscene, laden with the greatest impiety of which a nonbeliever is capable". Nonbelieving seems itself quite a religion. As seen, we find a variety of views even among the same people in the same predicament, my concern here being the upside-down morality of such as Hitchens, who thinks that what is meritorious is spitting at the praying man, rather than comforting him.

Turning to other parts of the book, the author's attitude can in a nutshell be found in the Acknowledgements (p.xi) and at the end of the Introduction (p.xxvi). In the first he notes his indebtedness to a group that rejects "the absurd and wicked claims of the religious", and in the second he speaks of "resistance to...faith [in the] combat with humanity's oldest enemy". What an extreme of one-sidedness and vilification.

Regarding God himself, whom he consistently spells with a small "g" although the names of even the worst villains are accorded a capital, he attributes to him (p.xvi) "an unalterable and unchallengeable celestial dictatorship" and again (p.xxii) "a permanent, unalterable celestial despotism that subjected us to continual surveillance and could convict us of thought-crime, and regarded us as its private property even after we died...How happy we ought to be, at the reflection that there exists not a shred of respectable evidence to support such a horrible hypothesis. And how grateful we should be to those...who repudiated this utter negation of human freedom."

The author should consider "reflection" on the laws of nature, by which he must abide unconditionally. God is conceived as the source of these laws and of any other he deems requisite as creator of Mr. Hitchens and everything else. The freedom Mr. Hitchens mentions was also granted, not negated, by God. Otherwise Mr. Hitchens's every action would be forced by inexorable physical laws, making him unable to as much as feed himself. The nonexistence of a "shred of respectable evidence" he speaks about is likewise false. The evidence may not be "respectable" to those he bows to, but they, too, are fallible. Mr. Hitchens talks as if he were a scientist and logician but is an authority in neither. He continually depends on natural selection as fact, and on absence of demonstration as refutation of God. Both can be disconfirmed, as I explained in other reviews here and more fully in On Proof for Existence of God, and Other Reflective Inquiries.

Mr. Hitchens expectably argues for a moral and beautiful atheist life, exceeding yet one under God. He says (pp.xvi-xvii) "I derive...satisfactions...from being of assistance to a fellow creature" or that the "Golden Rule is innate in us", condemning doing "a right action or avoid[ing] a wrong one [merely] for the hope of a divine reward or the fear of a divine retribution". Who do you think gave you the "innate" satisfaction in helping others? It wasn't Darwin. Notwithstanding your self-satisfaction of being moral, there is countless evidence that not only "sociopaths" and "psychopaths" act immorally left to themselves. As you say, "societies [don't] tolerate" various crimes, and that is why we have governments with laws applying to all. Similarly, concerning the beautiful you say (pp.xxii-xxiii) "there may be found a sense of awe and magnificence that does not depend at all on any invocation of the supernatural. Indeed, nobody armed by art and culture and literature and philosophy is likely to be anything but bored and sickened by", giving unlikely tales ending with, "babblings from the beyond". Again, your elitist pleasures are not likely to be shared by most, but more pertinently, whatever beauty is perceived in the world, it appears hollow without promise, and is more convincing as a gift of God than as accidental result of aimless forces.

Most objectionable in this book, however, may be its utmost besmirching of opponents, recognized even in its mild forms as the ad hominem fallacy, of wanting to win an argument by personal attack instead of reasoned presentation.

The most important thing I've ever learned about God is likely just this:

I AIN'T HIM.

As one who's lived on both sides of this great debate, first as a born-again 16-year-old, who, having found Jesus as only an apathetic, underachieving son of a network newscaster could (that is, surrounded by a gaggle of gorgeous girls at a church retreat the summer before my junior year of HS), I believe I offer a unique perspective on this particular subject.

When I was spending my senior year of high school speaking at churches, schools and various civic groups, I began to feel a real sense of power over those who listened to or approached me for spiritual guidance.

I even became known as, "my generation's Billy Graham," an appellation affixed to me by Campus Crusade for Christ staff at my school.

The hormonal assault that affects all of us at that age, regardless of whether we're a nerd, geek, jock ~ or, in my case, an attractive articulate leader, a gifted speaker, kissed by charisma, and intuitively aware of which soul in the room that evening could benefit from the type of gentle, lovingkindness I felt so privileged to be able to deliver ~ that 'mind vs. body' battle was making my desire to lead a chaste existence seem less and less do-able from one day to the next.

Let's just say, I've always been a sucker for the "pleasures of the flesh."

Of course, any reader who by now hasn't figured out where this thing was headed, probably has never been told, "You are the most spiritual man I have ever met," because, if you had, you would realize how difficult it was to stay humble. Much less how hard it becomes to avoid the whole, "Kissy-Face, Huggy-Bear, Pressy-Body" scenario at evening's end.

As innocent though it may sound, the KF-HB-PB entanglement can only lead to fornification. Such activity, in the hands of amateurs, can lead to one having to be inarculated. You know, to protect yourself from STPs. Sounds scary, I know.

Try not to jump to concussions.

Just because you had sex that one time, doesn't mean you are likely to get pregnant.

Unless, of course, you're a 'super-breeder' such as Bristol Palin.

Like they say: Abstinence makes the heart grow a fetus.

This is a fairly valuable collection of writings, especially those of the more ancient authors. Unfortunatley but not surprisingly it also includes some contemporary lightweights like Dawkins, Harris and Dennett who can't hold a candle to the really well-informed, classic atheists such as Feuerbach, Neitzsche, Camus and Sartre (who unfortunately are not included in this book). Unlike Hitchens, these were thinkers who at least understood what theism is, having read and understood the great theologians of their respective eras. As his previous book "God is Not Great" demonstrates, poor Christopher himself is in way over head, creating and then knocking down strawmen who represent only the lunatic fringe of theists, in the process displaying how little he actually knows about science, philosophy or theology. (How can you be an a-theist without actually knowing what theism is?) Not to worry -- Hitchens has stumbled upon an effective book selling tactic that's a lot less demanding than actually studying and engaging real contemporary theologians such as John Haught ("God and the New Atheists") or J.C. Polkinghorne ("Science and Theology"). It makes one think that P.T. Barnum had it right: you'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

This book fails to answer a few questions.
Atheists believe that there is nothing after death. That life simply ceases. Then why do Atheists become so obsessed with trying to disprove the existence of God? Why are they so frustrated, angry, hateful towards those who believe? Why do Atheists waste their short precious life attempting to persuade others that there is no heaven or life after death? Why do Atheist assume that those of faith lack any type of intellect? In spite of the fact that there are approx 5 billion people on this earth of which 95% believe in God, - a supreme being. So by default an Atheist is in essence saying that 95% of the world is either delusional or mentally retarded...incapable of logical though processes or intellectual reasoning.
Strange that Atheists who claim not to believe in God are so obsessed with the very thing they say doesn't exist --God.
Not logical.

Christopher Hitchens's book GOD IS NOT GREAT is as good an atheist manifesto as you're likely to find. Mr. Hitchens's new anthology, THE PORTABLE ATHEIST, is surely as good an atheist anthology as you're likely to find.

What a list of contributors! Darwin, Marx, Einstein, Spinoza, Orwell, Lovecraft, Larkin, Dawkins, Sagan, and many more. And what an entertaining introduction and running commentaries Mr. Hitchens has written for the book!

But like all arguments for atheism, the innumerable arguments advanced in this book are ultimately unconvincing.

I shall list only the most obvious objections to the same tired old points that are rehashed (often quite eloquently) again and again in this book.

1) Just because many (or even all) religious symbols and dogma are man-made does not even that they don't reflect, albeit imperfectly, "heavenly" concepts.

2) If religion is simply superstition, then why do so many human beings seem "wired" to have religious faith? If evolution can explain everything, then why has the so-called "God gene" (supposing it exists, and I think it does) proven so durable and well-night irresistible?

3) Not all people of faith are fundamentalists. Some of us find fundamentalism and religious faith incompatible, and fundamentalism blasphemous. And countless millions of us have no problem with evolution.

4) Can people still behave ethically without religious faith? Yes--as far as secular ethical standards force you to go.

But as a priest I knew once said, the Golden Rule isn't simply about "doing unto others"--it's about "going that extra mile."

Religious faith (especially Christianity) constantly pushes the believer forward--to strengthen and expand his faith, to forgive the people he hates the most, to search and fathom out his heart, to reform, to expand his faith on a personal, psychological, spiritual, and intellectual basis.

5) Can anyone who looks at a Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition doubt that there is a God, and that He's not a supreme designer--even if he worked through evolution?

Without a doubt, some great readings from great minds (maybe Hitchens included). The problem seems to be that Atheists in general, and as borne out through this and other Hitchens books, assume a stance which is easily argued as an irrational counter belief that there is no God. What is presented as fact is really nothing more than a very different interpretation of facts or causal relationships than those who believe in God. Were Atheists more rational and less vitriolic in their dismissal of a greater being, they might be more convincing. The position that the existence of God can't be known or proven, yet can't really be disproven with Atheists coming down on the side of non-belief would be more persuasive than their silly and irrational depictions of believers as rubes and/or militant delusionists. Sorry, but Hitchens doesn't convince anyone but those who are already convinced.

I'm a Christian who read this book and Dawkin's The God Delusion largely out of curiosity and I thoroughly enjoyed both. My final assessment? Great writers, but thoroughly unconvincing. Upon reading these works, one can't but help to get the feeling that their atheism, and their pure hatred of God and Christians in general, informs their science much more than their science informs their atheism. Take this straw man that Dawkins sets up in his book:

"However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable."

In other words, since creationists think that life is too complex to have arisen randomly (as the Darwinian materialists claim), any creator would necessarily be at least as, if not more, complex than the life you seek to explain. According to Dawkins, any creator must contain at least as much information as what it creates (e.g. the universe, life, etc...) and information is inversely correlated to probability. So, any God that could create everything would be too complex to be probable.

No wonder Dawkins is an atheist. His "god" is too small to believe in.

Can we not infer that any eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being with the ability to create life might in fact be infinitely complex and that the low probability that Dawkins posits says nothing more than that this being is unique (there is but one God), thereby accepting both the creator's infinite complexity and Dawkins' almost null probability? Dawkins never considers that possibility, again he begins with his atheism and works back from there.

Or, perhaps the reality is just the opposite. Maybe Dawkins' assumption of complexity breeding complexity is fallacious. Thomas Aquinas believed that God was simple, with no composition. Perhaps part of the beauty of God is His simplicity; a spirit, after all, has no parts. What better illustration of Occam's razor could exist?

And it was amazing to see just how many of these writers fell back on the "How Can God Be So Mean?" argument; that a good and perfect God would never allow such evil. This has always struck me as such a childlike argument. Is it a logical contradiction to believe in a wholly, good God who would allow evil to exist as part of His creation? I think not. In fact, the possibility of the existence of evil is a necessary corollary to the existence of unfettered free will. If man is free to choose, then the possibility for man to choose that which is not good is necessary.

luck when you stand before the God our father!
Your non belief however nicely spoken is wrong, wasted education. I believe you have already had your time before our God. I am sorry for those who do not believe !