Veröffentlicht von 
Ungünstigerweise Ähnliches Synonym
· unerfreulicherweise · unglücklicherweise ·. mir schrecklich leid, (aber), unerfreulicherweise, unglücklicherweise, ungünstigerweise, unseligerweise, zu allem Unglück, zu (jemandes)(großen) Bedauern. Synonyme für "ungünstigerweise" ▷ 11 gefundene Synonyme ✓ 1 verschiedene Bedeutungen für ungünstigerweise ✓ Ähnliches & anderes Wort für. 1 Bedeutung: ungünstigerweise. unglücklicherweise bedauerlicherweise zu meiner Schande zu meinem Bedauern / Leidwesen / Unglück unzureichenderweise. Ungünstigerweise setzt sich dabei am Ober- und Unterteil des Filterschlauchs Staub fest, was zur Abnutzung des Filterschlauchs und einer Abnahme der. Übersetzung im Kontext von „ungünstiger Weise“ in Deutsch-Englisch von Reverso Context: Vorrichtung nach einem der vorhergehenden Ansprüche, dadurch. Synonyme für ungünstigerweise,(es) tut mir schrecklich leid (aber),ärgerlicherweise,bedauerlicherweise,blöderweise,dummerweise,leider.
Dieser Mann wurde zuerst erschossen, dann der Polizei Chief, dann wurden diese drei erstochen , bevor der Kapitän erledigt wurde. Meine Brüder und Schwestern wurden zerhackt.
Bei Angestellten mit Stichwunden lässt er sich nicht lumpen. Arbeiten, nachdem wir verletzt wurden. Uns wurde beiden ins Herz gestochen.
Sie wurde beide in ihrem Haus erstochen. Alles Männer, alle von hinten erstochen. Diese beiden Leichen, von einer Frau hinterlassen.
Der Arzt Hasumi und seine Frau sind von einem Einbrecher Wir sind in "Apocalypse Now" und wir werden skalpiert werden. The decrepit old garments of thoug In his later years, Christopher Hitchens developed a habit of loudly declaiming about subjects that he had little specific knowledge about.
The decrepit old garments of thought were - finally - about to be cast aside by a group of intrepid journalists and scientists.
A new age of enlightenment was dawning. In retrospect the whole thing looks to have been a poorly-informed fad, as a few educated people had tried to point out at the time.
I generally viewed Hitchens as the most complex of the group, even though I disagreed with him, mainly because of his journalistic background.
He knew a little something about the world, much more so than Harris to say the least. I figured he was at least entitled to have a shot at making his grand philosophical case about things.
Hitchens does not understand religion and does not appear to be familiar with the philosophical underpinnings of the modern world, at all.
He goes to great lengths to note all the terrible things done by people in the name of religion all over the world, all history, all religions, in about pages , which is easy enough and could be done with anyone having access to Wikipedia.
As terrible as the Balkan Wars were, and as decent a journalist as Hitchens was during them, to distill it to religious atavism is so glaringly myopic that I can hardly believe that Hitchens himself believes this.
He does not engage with the depth of any of the traditions he critiques. He raises questions as though he is the first person ever to think of them and does not even appear to be interested in the answers.
I was really looking for this book to just be an enjoyable read and I have to say I was disappointed.
I also have a brief comment about the aesthetic quality of Hitchens writing, which is praised in breathless terms every time his name comes up.
Yes he is a capable writer and has written some eloquent things in his career. Despite a few nice turns of phrase this book however is very disjointed and not pleasing in a literary sense.
An ostensibly serious book about a serious topic can also be undermined by too many flowery obfuscations. This really needs to be an ornament to the argument rather than a substitute for it though.
View all 21 comments. Surprisingly, I wasn't beguiled by this book as much as I thought I would be. I like Hitchens's irreverent delivery on everything -- but this seemed to fall rather flat.
Or at least, "flattish". Couldn't quite put my finger on it, except to say that it seems that any kind of sustained rant has the immediate effect of getting me to tune out.
A rant is a good thing -- get it off your chest, say what you have to say, with good points to back it all up, and then move on.
Hitchens lingers on the pag Surprisingly, I wasn't beguiled by this book as much as I thought I would be. Hitchens lingers on the page just a little too long and makes me feel that not only does religion poison everything, but so do clever intellectuals.
Know thyself -- and know when to shut up -- are worthier conceits than verbal diarrhea. I felt much this way in viewing Bill Maher's Religulous.
Clever, acerbic, funny, to-the-point: but then he just didn't know where to stop. Hammer to the head, over and over -- and over -- again The irony of that!
I agree with everything Hitchens and Maher says, but for me, once is enough. That is, tell me once, I learn my lesson and move on.
That being said, he does leave the believers with a lot of food for thought in this simple quote: Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.
I note, with some temerity, that those words are not applicable only to religion, however, but to the state of political figures making their rise in today's world.
Change the title to Man is Not Great, and it would be more applicable. View all 9 comments. Up til a few hundred years ago, religion used to be our way of understanding all the shit we didn't have answers for - which was a lot There were gods we could try to please or mollify by killing things, and then harass for military, climatic and antiviral favors.
It usually didn't amount to m Up til a few hundred years ago, religion used to be our way of understanding all the shit we didn't have answers for - which was a lot It usually didn't amount to much, but one lucky break in 50 is enough to keep faith alive for the desperate.
The gods were like us, capricious and selfish. Then it was god, singular, for very specific and random reasons; archaeologists and anthropologists are still finding fun new evidence to confuse themselves with, which I'll get to in a moment.
In the monotheistic beginning, god wasn't any better than the gods that came as a matching set. He had his own crew, and still acted like a mercurial, genocidal dick.
It really wasn't until years ago that Christianity made excuses for his temper tantrums, and repainted Yahweh as a kind and loving god, despite a shitload of evidence to the contrary.
If god existed, why would anyone think this twat deserved 'faith'? Seen objectively, the god of the Old Testament is the best argument against 'faith' around.
Any ideology that makes a virtue of willful ignorance, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, needs to be killed with napalm.
He wasn't capricious or cruel. He was fair and loving He felt bad about it the morning after, though And an awesome goat. This new-and-improved, loving and caring, monotheistic 'Yahweh' supposedly wasn't governed by human faults and weaknesses, even if he let it slip to Moses we were created in his image.
It may seem ridiculous from a modern POV, but it all seemed sensible to them. And Christians, Jews and Muslims are still in denial about this murderous piece of shit.
Insecurity is definitely a part of the divine character, since he constantly needs reassurances that we love him, even after the douchebag kills our cats and grandmothers.
It's always our fault; 'it's not you, God, it's me'. Those tens of thousands of babies that die every day obviously have it coming for their sins.
If god's so dead-set against abortion, maybe he should prove it by not killing the children of parents who wanted to start a family.
So contrary to whatever his biographers and publicity agents have been telling us for several millennia, god's just as flaky and mercurial as Jupiter and, well Looking back at all the genocidal and sadistic Old Testament tantrums - Sodom and Gomorrah, the Flood, cursing several billion people to pain and death because their great-great-great-great-etc.
Every bit of suffering in the universe was his doing, yet we're still supposed to thank him for shoving this shit sandwich down our collective throat, to grovel and smile and beg for vague nothings via prayer.
If you're Unplug it, plug it back in, and pray harder, ferfucksake. Are you certain you've done everything right? There you go, you're too proud of your righteousness.
That's not it? For the desperate and the stupid, faith is invulnerable to reason. What would you think of a person who bought an ant farm, then tossed it into the furnace a day later because the ants wouldn't tap-dance when he asked politely?
God's nuttiness is several orders of magnitude more severe. Thank god for not existing. Now that all those answers religion provided are no longer needed - and wrong about absolutely everything - it's only purpose is to whisper bullshit in the ear of the 'troubled soul', and provide reasons for humanity to kill itself over long outdated lies.
We might as well murder each other over slight historical disagreements about Santa Claus. Elves or gnomes?
Reindeer or caribou? Scarlet red or cherry red? View all 40 comments. Oct 03, J. I'm not preachy on religion, and everybody has their own take on spirituality and their own beliefs, which is how it should be.
View 2 comments. Shelves: politics , favorites. I knew that he was an atheist, but because of my own spritual searching I was reluctant to read this book when it first came out.
I finally picked up the book because I have been on a non-fiction binge lately and I knew that by reading his book I was guaranteed an intelligent treatise.
By the time I finished the book, I was very glad that I had read it. Hitchens doesn't so much attack God as he attacks religion.
He begins the book by describing himself as a boy, learning passages from the Bible, and the moment he felt that there must not be a God because of a comment his teacher makes.
The tales of his boyhood experiences with religion and atheism are used for making his one of his thesis -- that organized religion ruins everything.
He points out that it seems one goal of organized religion is to make humans relinquish independent and rational thought. One of the great things about the book is that the chapters are clearly and concisely laid out.
In fact, I found the chapter sequence to be quite methodical. As is his usual trait when Hitchens is arguing against something, he builds his arguments gradually and strongly.
Right after I bought the book I read online that many people who considered themselves evangelical have bought the book in a sort of know-thy-enemy way.
I wonder if they felt like they any kind of rebuttal, because Hitchens -- through his extensive readings and reportage -- has built a historically sound case against the three organized religions.
It is worthy to note, while Hitchens does deride some of the beliefs and practices of the big three, he does not sneer of the entirety of the faiths.
He knows that there are good people in these faiths who only wish to do good. It the people who take their faiths to the extremes and misinterpret the written word that Hitchens takes most issue with.
My only critique is that I do not think he addressed the evolution vs creationism as effectively as he could have. He makes mention of it several times, but does not explore it deeply.
Otherwise anyone with any kind of brainpower should read this book. View all 7 comments. When my friends or the new people I'm acquainted with find out that I am an atheist ,they tend to raise their eyebrows or purse their lips.
She insisted that I believ When my friends or the new people I'm acquainted with find out that I am an atheist ,they tend to raise their eyebrows or purse their lips.
She insisted that I believe in him. Inculcated in militant character,I explained my side in flagrant defiance. As a result, we had had heated debates many times; our friendship almost turned to ice in view of our irrepressibly acrimonious opinions.
Christopher Hitchens is one of the major influences on my being an apostate. It was still unintelligible to me since I read its free PDF.
That's why I was not even able to write my review of it. Besides, I was not scholarly ready yet to give my thoughts of it; it needs deeper assimilation.
The result? A book that believers must find ridiculous beyond logical explanation, a big threat to their incessantly dominant indoctrination. In the end, what Hitchens wanted to point out, the way I see it overall, is that there has been a culture of ignorance in that people conform to the facts they find universal.
Go figure! I've been an avowed atheist for four years, since I read some books dealing with atheism.
So, comparatively speaking, I would say that my life is better than before. I am now comfortable to live the way I want. I don't need to conform to religious customs I find paradoxical.
Rather, I lead my life based on what I know what is right for the sake of humanity. I might call it the " universal conscience". And don't even dare tell me that conscience is a godly gift.
No wonder Hitchens strongly believes that religion kills everything. I believe that these books are the springboard for breaking all the spells that have been binding you for a long time.
Good luck and let me know then about your thoughts of them. Happy reading! View all 15 comments. He covers everything with the same feelings I have but he has a powerful writing style and better vocabulary.
He presents a great message! This book received two stars because of the writing. Hitchens writes well. I could have given it five stars for the value it holds for the Christian community - it serves as easy target practice.
It is too bad that I only have characters at my disposal. Otherwise, I would love to go through this book in painstaking detail, pointing out the flabby and flaccid naked emperor while we all point and laugh at how confident the ignorant, intellectually naked emperor struts up and down the street.
T This book received two stars because of the writing. There has always been a power struggle between the clear, cogent, and well-reasoned arguments of the philosopher on the one hand, and the bottom-feeding sophist on the other.
Hitchens proudly stands in the line of the latter. Hitchens doesn't bother to define "god," "religion," "poison," and how it poisons "everything.
He and his ilk have already defeated the theist fair and square, no need to take care in how well you argue. Indeed, so sure is Hitchens of the truth of his conclusion that he barely deals with any thing a Christian thinker has had to say, besides Paley.
Oh, I think he mentions Agustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Newman, just for the purpose of pointing out that they have written "evil and foolish things.
I'm saying that he didn't engage them. Not only that, but his approach is double minded. For example, he begins by saying that the religious adherent is "the intended reader of this book.
But if Christians like me are, as he says, his "intended audience," then we don't have to "imagine", now do we? We might as well top this paragraph off by pointing out that Hitchens has a chapter called "The Tawdriness of the Miraculous and the Decline of Hell.
He says nary a word about hell! These were just a couple of lowlights. I could multiply these types of criticisms all too easily. The book claims that Hitchens was named 5 on a list of top intellectuals.
Which theist does he unleash the artillery of his massive brain power on? His 4th grade teacher, Mrs. He spends more time critiquing her than any competent theological or theistic philosopher.
He says that we do evil because we evolved that way. So, religion isn't to blame, Mammaw Nature is. He appeals to "Ockham's razor, yet he doesn't use it, like other naturalists have, to whittle away mental states like beliefs and pain he relies on these states for his arguments, though.
He doesn't use it to whittle away moral claims. He critiques the designer because of poor design, yet he gives no indication that he knows what the design plan was aiming to achieve.
You can't call the designer a bad designer without knowing his intentions. And, dysteleogy assumes teleology.
He never bothers to address the arguments which seek to show that if our cognitive faculties evolved given a naturalistic understanding of the universe, we have no reason to belief our beliefs are aimed at truth.
They'd just be aimed at survival. Hitchens drops the ball over and over again. Unfortunately I don't have the time, or key strokes, to really get into this.
Overall, the book was a flop. If this is the best The New Atheism has to offer, theists can relax. View all 25 comments.
With a close and erudite reading of the major religious texts, he documents the ways in which religion is a man-made wish, a cause of dangerous sexual repression, and a distortion of our origins in the cosmos.
Hitchens frames the argument for a more secular life based on science and reason, in which hell is replaced by the Description: In the tradition of Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian and Sam Harris's The End of Faith, Christopher Hitchens makes the ultimate case against religion.
Hitchens frames the argument for a more secular life based on science and reason, in which hell is replaced by the Hubble Telescope's awesome view of the universe and Moses and the burning bush give way to the beauty and symmetry of the double helix.
So, to answer the question Why do human beings exist? View all 5 comments. Growing up w Protestant clergy all over the family but, most thankfully, loving parents , I never took any of the Blubble seriously, or weekly "devotionals," which one older sister hugged as a way to say to parents, "Hey, LOVE ME!
But she had a problem : I made my parents laugh. When Pops intoned, "Man cannot live by bread alone," I retorted, "What about chocolate croissants?
I knew fr the get-go that relig wa Growing up w Protestant clergy all over the family but, most thankfully, loving parents , I never took any of the Blubble seriously, or weekly "devotionals," which one older sister hugged as a way to say to parents, "Hey, LOVE ME!
I knew fr the get-go that relig was bosh A genetic quirk? Or wazzit cos all the religios I had to be poohlite to were dowdy frumps or oogly fat boors??
Beauty could only be found in movie zines Hitchens has written a scholarly and brilliant book on how relig "poisons everything. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or gurus actually said or did.
And yet -- they still claim to know! Not to just know, "but to know everything. But if ye are not a stiff-necked people, you will let Hitchens do it.
The title says it all, so you know what to expect from this book, so if you're very religious and easily offended..
The author presented many valid points, most of his arguments were good but he focused on the extreme points of religion while i would have preferred a more general realistic approach.
I wasn't beguiled as i thought i would be when I picked up this book. I had few problems with the writing, the structure of the book was unappealing and The title says it all, so you know what to expect from this book, so if you're very religious and easily offended..
I had few problems with the writing, the structure of the book was unappealing and It was dragged out many times which resulted in a severe boredom while reading this I am an atheist myself, however new to the group I might be.
How do I put this mildly? But just a bit, mind you, not a lot. But, what agnosticism offers in return is the acceptance that there is actually something out there, luring in the divine space, waiting for us to recognize it to its true form and power.
Which is, I used to believe, much more acceptable than… Than atheism, really. Than flat-out acknowledging and believing and living up to this belief that there is no God.
I have never in my life been a believer. As a kid, my family took me to a vast number of churches, not only of my religion, even if predominantly confined by it; big churches, small churches, some covered in gold, some built of wood, some carved in rock; some with a lot of fervent followers, others with just a lonely, old priest watching over the precincts… I have visited other countries and entered their churches, seen their shrines, watched their processions.
I have had a fair amount of religious visiting done — but never in the name of God. It was to see human-made wonders, ironically. I have shared meals with priests and slept with nuns in their rooms, in the mountains; I have experienced the simplicity that religion can instill into the lives of men and women, who devote their entire beings towards a better existence at the end of their current one.
I have also seen the gold-adorned lives some religious people dwell in because of this foolish and completely idiotic belief that a creator would need to be worshipped with precious stones; How, did the creator not also create the poor?..
Or maybe he had an eye for sparkle. I guess my point is, the concept of God in itself was useless to my formation, to my life.
I have not had any advantage from being baptized into the Orthodox Church, no real need fulfilled by my affiliation to a certain religious cult.
My life has been much more impacted upon by the fact that I was born into a white, middle-class, fairly well-off European family and that I have been given the proper education during each stage of my life in order to propel me to my current position and allow me to pursue my apparently fucked-up dreams.
But, at some point in my intellectual journey, I realized I had to know more about religion. I simply had to. What also prompted me to analyze the matter more profoundly was the attitude of religious people in my vicinity when confronted with a non-believer.
I have had confrontations mainly in a scholarly environment, but just as meaningful ones outside of it with people who had blamed me for my decisions and professed harsh consequences upon my doings, supported by their faith, when all I had done was ask questions.
I do have opinions, mind you. I am not one of those who will talk against the concept of God; however, against the fantasies that the Bible or any other scripture professes as historically true, I will; against stupidity and racism and extremist followers and the banishment of science, I will; against mindless, spineless and remorseless individuals who coerce their children into fear and revulsion, perpetuating this tradition of imbecility over generations, I will.
Against all of that and many more, I will speak up. After all this ranting, I want you to take this away: I understand the need for religion.
I understand why we turned to it in the first place and why we still cling to it now. I do not speak against God. I question him, his existence, his preaching, his absurd needs and his megalomaniac commands.
I judge him, yes, and his followers, as they also judge me in return. You could call it mutual distrust, really. I believe I have the right to burn in Hell, or in all versions of it that exist.
If you are a religious person reading this, please pray to your God that I may suffer. Please, bring the flames on, an eternity of torture for this pitiful apostate that I am!
I beg of you, prove me wrong. I fully intend to burn in Hell if that is the punishment for critical thinking and freedom of opinion.
Make crackling strips out of my skin! Scrambled brains out of the contents of my skull! And never grant me forgiveness for wanting to understand the world by the power of my own mind.
Not by someone who is content in giving up his identity to a whimsical being of a far-away land. Being an atheist just makes me a conscious one.
What I promise I will not talk about: how awesome Christopher Hitchens is. He is an atheist and a very articulate one indeed.
When reading his work, you must be aware of the position he is taking: he is against blind faith and all for finding proof. He questions everything, tries to shed light on the scriptures and the relationship between human and divine and all in all succeeds in making a very serious and solid case for his motion.
I have read some commentaries that he just mindlessly gives examples about how different people do different bad things in the name of their religion, and the readers who said that were arguing that these are useless extracts.
I believe not. Of course he is going to point out what individuals do in the name of religion, that is the exact purpose of it all, how far humans will go and to what extent they will cause suffering and ignite wars and deny the most basic needs to others because of what their God read: whimsical being of a far-away land with a very serious ego problem has said.
If one is false, all are. He talks the same about the three big monotheist religions, as well as about the remote cults of distant lands.
The reason why so much of his work is concentrated around the Judaic, Muslim, and Christian preaching is that these three have had a massive effect on our society, as we experience it today.
They were very useful in the dawn of time, when volcanoes erupting at every corner and people found dead in the morning could not receive a proper explanation.
After all, religion is a very early and very primitive attempt at science! You can see that this man has loved reading since he was a kid.
You can see he knows literature in a very intimate way; his choice of words, his rhythm, the subtle irony underlining the entire work, everything points out to a wonderfully complex and cultured mind behind those pages.
And cultured he had to be, given the enormity of the subjects he chose to tackle in his entire career. This is, in my opinion, a very good piece of non-fiction writing.
It shows through a very thorough research, even if it is centered on finding the right facts to support his claims.
Atheists … you know you liked it. Even if it was the sort of: "oh wow he said it much better than I could have" like, you enjoyed it.
Even if you're backed up by all your faith, don't Hitchens' arguments pick at your reason? All the rest … pick a side.
Does Hitchens ask for too much? Just pick a damn side. Significant that no argument of the author can be invalidated with rational arguments.
Only with proof of God Please note that I put the original German text at the end of this review. Just if you might be interested.
Hitchens provides a hard-to-disagree, non-philosophical polemic against faith. So, versucht der verzweifelte Hausbesitzer sie auf seine Seite zu bekommen.
Restraint is an Australian thriller about a rich guy who has an extreme case of agoraphobia. While the male part of the couple is a clear nutcase, the girl seems to be not so far over the edge.
So the captivated house owner tries to get her on his side. A mind game begins. Ungünstigerweise verringert sich der Anteil der zur Verfügung stehenden Energie immer mehr, je höher die Energie der Teilchen wird.
This part of the energy is not available for the production of new particles. Unfortunately, the fraction of energy which is available decreases rapidly with increasing energy.
Ungünstigerweise beschlägt mein Visier, so dass ich es offen lassen muss, um bei der Geschwindigkeit noch etwas vom Weg zu erkennen.
Hier leitet der Text über zur Aufbaubeschreibung. Der Aufbau erfolgte ungünstigerweise an nur vier Tagen, vier Feiertagen, noch ungünstiger war jedoch, dass einige der Helfer stark erkrankt waren die Aufbauzeit von 4 Tagen, und nicht wie geplant 9 Tagen ergab sich daraus, dass 2 wichtige Personen, mit 2 unterschiedlichen Terminkalender, die Ausstellungen zeitlich festlegten.
Moreover the dimensions of these 'beautifull' walls do not match with the dimensions of the entrance and exit, being larger. Building up the exhibition had to take place in four days only unfortunately, four public holidays, and even more unfortunate was the fact the a few of our coworkers were quite ill.
More context All My memories Ask Google. Add a translation. German Die Ketten haben ungünstigerweise sehr kleine Längskomponenten. English Unfavorably, the chains have very small longitudinal components.
German Die Lufteinlässe für die Motorkühlung befinden sich ungünstigerweise in der Unterdruckzone am Heck.
English Quite disadvantageous the air intakes for the cooling air of the engine are in the aera of depression.
German Ungünstigerweise wurde das Wetter so schlecht, dass wir beschlossen den Motor anzuwerfen.
So, while I've disagreed Baywatch Amazon some his past books and ideas, this is one that fellow misanthropic humanists would do well to read. Belief that decent religious people exist does not mean you have to agree with them or believe in their God. And cultured he had to be, given the enormity of the subjects he chose to tackle in Vivian Maier entire career. I simply had to. Hier Vivian Maier der Text über zur Aufbaubeschreibung. Eine Messe, Feier oder nur eine unverfängliche Veranstaltung einer anderen Glaubensgemeinschaft zu besuchen kann sich mit zunehmender Radikalität als immer unmöglicher herausstellen. I read this months ago Henrik Duryn never got around to the review Synonym "ungünstigerweise" melden. Übersetzung nicht bestätigt. The risk is that the Deutsche Serien condition may react to such treatment in an adverse fashion. Synonym ungainly. Du kannst Greeklex. Sprache der Tiere.Resultados: Exactos: Tiempo de respuesta: 42 ms. All rights reserved. Historial Favoritos. Reverso para Windows Es gratis Descargue nuestra app gratis.
Conjugar esta forma verbal. Participio pasado Verbo. Alle vier wurden erstochen , auf die gleiche Weise, mit dem gleichen Messer.
Kennst du diese Gasse, wo letzten Monat diese zwei Typen erstochen wurden? Wilson und Rand wurden erstochen , richtig?
Dieser Mann wurde zuerst erschossen, dann der Polizei Chief, dann wurden diese drei erstochen , bevor der Kapitän erledigt wurde.
Meine Brüder und Schwestern wurden zerhackt. Bei Angestellten mit Stichwunden lässt er sich nicht lumpen. Arbeiten, nachdem wir verletzt wurden. Besides the fact that scientists will happily accept new evidence and change their theories if knowledge in their field expands, as opposed to creationists, who stubbornly will change reality to fit their ancient ideas from an illiterate, patriarchal and tribal era, there is another flaw in the creationist vindictive search for loopholes in evolutionary science: Even if they happen to prove that evolutionists made a mistake or two in their research, that does not by any means make their own claims more valid!
Why is the default setting a minority Christian fundamentalist belief in the literal truth of the Bible? ANY other explanation is equally valid without proof.
The world on the turtle's back, the simulation of a brain in a vat, anything can be true if we do not accept evidence as a basis. As far as I am concerned, there is more proof in the world for Greek gods than for the so-called "justice" of the monotheistic gods in their various interpretations.
Evidently, it was quite the other way about, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths, that we see all about us and that has so retarded the development of civilization.
I'll wear a false nose and wart if necessary: "- Crowd: A witch! A witch! We found a witch! We've got a witch! We have found a witch. May we burn her?
I'm not a witch! It's a false one. But she is a witch! A bit. What are they? Tell us. Great gravy. A duck! View all 63 comments. I read this months ago and never got around to the review Simply stated, Hitchens puts into words all the reasons I shy away from organized religion.
The prejudices, sexism, the overall foolishness At the same time, he seems oblivious to the fact that there are religious people out there doing great things; feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, building for the homeless.
Hey Hitchens! I get that you are atheist. That's fine, but knock that chip off your shoulder already! Belief that decent I read this months ago and never got around to the review Belief that decent religious people exist does not mean you have to agree with them or believe in their God.
Hitchens, may I suggest a few new titles for your book? View all 94 comments. Shelves: philosophy-to-read.
As a fellow Atheist, Mr. Hitchens is preaching to choir, so to speak, in this informative, captivating work in which Hitchens judiciously provides historically documented and personal examples of what he sees as an ever-increasing war being waged by a variety of religious fundamental organizations.
Worse, these groups instill a deep-rooted fear in t As a fellow Atheist, Mr. Worse, these groups instill a deep-rooted fear in the most vulnerable, forced members of their congregation; young, helpless, defenseless children, sometimes as young as three.
Hitchens provides chilling eye-witness accounts of these tactics which are slowly tearing away at the fabric of this great nation. Regardless of your religious beliefs, if you have an open mind and enjoy reading well written, fact-based, relevant nonfiction, then you will enjoy this book.
Certainly, deeply religious people may find certain parts upsetting as fundamental beliefs are challenged with factual, cited information.
Hitchens has a way of peeling away the absurdity of certain religious beliefs and how these beliefs, at their very core, are contrary to very ideals shouted to the masses during worship services.
Read about each of these religious. Get a book along the lines of Religion for Dummies there is a joke in there somewhere and get an overview of what these groups are all about.
Then study philosophy and science and art and history. Read Ayn Rand and Aristotle and Plato and study and research and think for yourself. Islamic authorities of the Council of Ulemas in Indonesia urged that condoms only be made available to married coupled HUH?
The building blocks of religion. Pro or con. Christian or Agnostic. Cubs or White Sox. This book will, if nothing else, be educational and thought-provoking.
View all 8 comments. Not long ago, I watched a couple of those "How The Universe Works" shows, and it kinda traumatized me.
In however many billions of years, the sun is going to die, and slightly before that the Earth will be incinerated, and everything that we are, were, will be, and will have built will cease to exist.
I can comprehend that. Earth's only one part of a solar system in a tiny part of one galaxy of hundreds of billions of galaxies that exist in the vastness of the universe.
I know that someday Not long ago, I watched a couple of those "How The Universe Works" shows, and it kinda traumatized me.
I know that someday thankfully not very soon , Earth is a goner. But what's hard for me to comprehend is that eventually, the rest of the universe will end too.
That's just mind-boggling to me. That something so vast, and so seemingly infinite, can just end Almost, because it's sometimes comforting in the face of the end of all existence.
But I don't. Even if I DID have that faith, that would be all. I could never be religious, because I don't believe in religion. And that is the crux of this book for me.
A little anecdote before I continue: A couple weeks ago, The Boy's family came to stay with us for a few days to visit. They are religiousy, grace-before-dinner heh, almost typo'd 'sinner' there , "God has a plan" types, who give God credit for everything.
They hit all green lights driving through town? God was with them, etc. I try not to get sucked into conversations about religion with The Boy's grandma, because she's a sweet lady who just can't see things being other than how she sees them, and she believes that she's only trying to help me "find God".
I know she wouldn't understand my lack of desire to have anything to do with religion, so I just avoid the topic altogether whenever possible.
The last day of their visit, the inevitable happened and she cornered me while I was making dinner: Her: "So, have you found a church yet?
You know, you'd really like my church. It's the biggest in the area. We have to drive 45 minutes to get there, but I really like it because it's got gold on the windowsills and they've got their own TV and radio stations and Then: "So, why don't you go to church?
I don't believe in organized religion. They are always standing and sitting and chanting at just the right times! They are really organized!
Religions tell people that they are going to spend eternity in suffering unless they Follow The Rules Organized religion seeks and too often succeeds to exert control over people's thoughts and behavior, imposing standards of purity that are nearly impossible to attain, even in the most pious believer.
But more than that, they also insert themselves into politics, seeking to impose their particular brand of 'morality' on everyone, which inevitably leads to human rights violations and less freedom for people of all beliefs.
Religion spawns creatures of such vile ugliness and pure evil that I can't even comprehend them And that's just the Westboro Baptist Church.
Ahh, such wholesome, joyful hatred. I agreed with much of what Hitchens said in this book on the subject of religion, because I do think that can be toxic, but we actually differ on the faith aspect.
I have no problem with faith, or belief in any God, whatever they may be called. That is an individual's decision and it's personal to them.
My issue is when faith is bound up in religion as an institution that uses it as a method of control and intolerance. That is when I feel that a line is crossed, and in my opinion, the result is far more harm than good, if viewed in large-scale terms.
View all 58 comments. I'm probably going to court some hateful comments by trying to write a review of this book, but I think Hitch would be proud that I am making the attempt.
I have been reading Hitch's work for years, including his essays on mortality and atheism, so I knew the gist of his arguments against religion, but it was enlightening going through this entire book.
He synthesizes a tremendous amount of research from history, philosophy, science and current events, and he argues that "religion poisons everyth I'm probably going to court some hateful comments by trying to write a review of this book, but I think Hitch would be proud that I am making the attempt.
He synthesizes a tremendous amount of research from history, philosophy, science and current events, and he argues that "religion poisons everything.
He makes his case using his great wit and flair for words, and the result is a compelling read. Here are a few favorite passages: "Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar.
They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.
And if we chance to forget what that must have been like, we have only to look at those states and societies where the clergy still has the power to dictate its own terms.
The pathetic vestiges of this can still be seen, in modern societies, in the efforts made by religion to secure control over education, or to exempt itself from tax, or to pass laws forbidding people to insult its omnipotent and omniscient deity, or even his prophet.
Surely something so evident was within the wit of man to encompass? And so it would have been, decades ago, if the messianic rabbis and mullahs and priests could have been kept out of it.
But the exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews , have made the situation insufferable, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a quarrel that now features the threat of nuclear war.
Religion poisons everything. As well as a menace to civilization, it has become a threat to human survival.
Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason.
We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe: we have music and art and literature, and find that the serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Eliot than in the mythical morality tales of the holy books.
Literature, not scripture, sustains the mind and -- since there is no other metaphor -- also the soul. If you have ever seen him interviewed or heard him give a speech, you know he has a fantastic voice, so I need to make a plug for his audiobooks, which are excellently narrated.
And if you want to read some Hitchens but don't want to get all religion-y, I highly recommend his autobiography "Hitch View all 6 comments.
Having read the book some time before the author died and having written a review but not on this site I'm at a loss to comprehend now what went wrong with this book.
I had a more lenient rating system at the time I read this book. There is too much focus on current terrorist acts and while in theory it's not a bad idea, I did found such parts muddling and boring.
Respect to Hitchens though and RIP. View all 19 comments. Since I can't say anything with out being labelled as a 'heretic' or a 'heathen', I will just say this; Not everything, but it does poison a lot of things.
And its first victims are Reason and Common sense. View all 51 comments. I've read it, front to back. Hitchens laments that the faithful of whatever persuasion "have believed what the priests and rabbis and imams tell them about what the unbelievers think" 10 , and it follows he rages that priests, rabbis and imams would presume to know or communicate what atheists think and why.
And yet, what is Hitchens's book if not pages of an unbeliever telling other unbelievers what believers think and why? The hypocrisy here, and elsewhere in the book, is bald as So.
The hypocrisy here, and elsewhere in the book, is bald as can be. Time and again, he holds religious institutions fiercely accountable for their contempt - e.
People "must" regard them with contempt, he writes, "must" allowing for no disagreement, no wiggle room.
Hitchens here fashions himself the moral arbiter in his arguments against religions having fashioned themselves moral arbiters.
Later still, he criticizes Evelyn Waugh's comments about remarriage constituting an addition of spittle in the face of Christ as a wickedness that outstrips Waugh's own infidelities.
At this point, I'll make it known that I, too, am critical of Waugh's opinion on remarriage and of his having expressed it to a friend on the cusp of remarriage , but who except Hitchens has made Hitchens qualified to rank Waugh's wickednesses?
Again, his proclamation is arbitrary, and his authority specious at best. Or earlier in the book when he writes: "The harder work of inquiry, proof, and demonstration is infinitely more rewarding [ Later, writing of Spinoza: "his meditations on the human condition have provided more real consolation to thoughtful people than has any religion" Although, what's even likelier here is a subtle dig at religious people on the whole in the suggestion that none of them is "thoughtful.
No one likes to side with the folks being humiliated except Christ, anyway , and his wit insures his readers will at least want to side with him, even when their consciences and critical aptitudes discourage it.
His incessant rollcall of insults, referring to various believers as "orangutans" 56 , "ignoramus" 64 , "goons" , "barbarian" , "pathetic fraud" , "boobies" , "hypocrites" - all language that suggests Hitchens is every bit the "bigot and [ And when he condemns Mahayanna Buddhism's assertion that sometimes it is perceived one should be killed in order to preserve untold numbers of lives , one cannot but think of Hitchens's own vocal support for the war in Iraq, for the invasion of a sovereign nation on grounds debatable at best, dubious at worst, and resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
It also warrants mentioning here that Hitchens's intellectual compatriot Sam Harris has written that a nuclear first strike in which tens of millions might die might be permissible if it meant saving more lives in the long run.
And then there is his admiration of Socrates's concession that he might have been wrong, Socrates having said "in effect: I do not know for certain about death and the gods - but I am as certain as I can be that you do not know, either" This is an attribution Hitchens gives to Socrates, and one he applauds, and likely believes he shares.
But the book is evidence otherwise. His cherry-picking in the texts he uses, the spin he brings to bear in the historical epochs he unfolds, and the manipulation of context in which he situates certain literary and scientific appropriations one would think Dostoevsky hadn't been a Christian!
Hitchens is a bright man, and he should be bright enough to see that replacing centuries of religious hostilities with pages of secular ridicule does nothing to set the bar higher than it has been.
The book is a rant in which numerous good points are made - e. It precedes it. One final thing I'll mention is how unfortunate it is that Hitchens cannot seem to fathom the ways in which truth and facts are different entities, if often compliments.
He's a literary critic and should know this better than anyone! Just as Northrop Frye has discussed at length, the Old Testament was never intended as a literal document - the culture that conceived of it understood this, so why can't Hitchens?
The stories in the Old Testament are not facts and were not meant to be taken as such, so criticizing their being more akin to fables merely because a contingent of modern religious folk have misunderstood their meaning reveals Hitchens's response to be more a reaction than a response and reveals a misunderstanding in him as deep as the one in the literalist perspective of which he's so unforgiving.
Ironically, one of the best explanations of the assertion that truth is as often found in an absence of fact as in fact can be seen in Enduring Love, a novel by Ian McEwan - the writer to whom God is not Great is dedicated.
In it, Clarissa, a Keats scholar commenting on a disputed urban legend-like encounter between Keats and Wordsworth, says: "It isn't true, but it tells the truth" Similarly, the Old Testament isn't true as we understand "true" to be "factual," but it does tell the truth - about mankind, his nature, his shortcomings, his sense of longing, his sense of the sacred, etc.
Enduring Love's exploration of this question with regard to religion - and not just Keats - plumbs much deeper, too, than I've mentioned here.
Again, that Hitchens seems incapable of distinguishing between "truth" and "facts" or "data" is bizarre, given his standing as a literary critic.
However learned he is, and whatever the book's nominal pluses, its tone is offensive, its conclusions misguided and its suppositions the product less of inquiry than of resentment.
View all 18 comments. This book is fundamentally flawed in argument, but can be enjoyable to read. Christopher Hitchens, however, is an exceptionally witty writer, who often finds clever ways to express himself.
His writing is conversational, flowing, but sometimes elitist, arrogant, and pretentious. His humor is evident throughout the book, but it is consistently divisive and adversarial.
As an atheist, I find the writing enjoyable, intelligent, and humorous. I do not need to be further convinced of the dangers of fa This book is fundamentally flawed in argument, but can be enjoyable to read.
I do not need to be further convinced of the dangers of faith and religion, so I am willing to tolerate fallacies and offensive comments while I enjoy the witty writing.
For the religious or the uncertain, however, this book may seem too irreverent and offensive to be of any intellectual value.
Few faithful people would be willing to entertain the author's notions long enough to see where he has valid points and separate them from his snideness.
This is a true shame, because there are some worthwhile messages. The main message is that religion can be a bad influence on things.
Unfortunately, the author phrases this as the fallacious "religion poisons everything. It is unfortunate that the conclusion of the book is overstated, because a more cautious assessment of the dangers of religious rejection of reason would be valuable and accessible to more people.
I would recommend that people interested in the subject matter instead review the extensive on-line collection of atheist writing.
Much of it is more welcoming and less arrogant. The library also includes written works oriented towards people of other faiths as well.
View all 14 comments. Imagine if a basketball fan set out to discredit baseball and converts its adherents to his chosen sport.
He would note the rather dubious creation myth still celebrated in the sports' Hall of Fame, the Black Sox scandal, the exclusion of African American players until the s, frequent brawls between teams that literally clear the benches, and two most successful players of the last decade being almost undoubted cheats.
He could go on to argue that the uniforms are childish, the habits of pla Imagine if a basketball fan set out to discredit baseball and converts its adherents to his chosen sport.
He could go on to argue that the uniforms are childish, the habits of players disgusting and their salaries even more so , and the rules hopelessly complex and inconsistent.
Finally, he might say, subjecting children to such a game through organized little leagues is perhaps a form of child abuse.
After all, it subjects them to needless stress to perform in an environment where even the most successful fail more than half the time and relies on shouting coaches for motivation.
The basketball fan might then make a few comments on the beauty of a Larry Bird jumper, the deftness of a Magic Johnson behind-the-back pass, and the awe-inspiring grace of a Jordan dunk and thus safely conclude the argument convinced that his case was proved.
Replace baseball with religions and basketball with enlightenment rationalism and you've essentially got God is Not Great.
Hitchens' book is a catalog of the sins of religions and a well considered and highly pointed one at that. I found much I want to think over a bit more in my faith after watching it fall under Hitchens's inspection.
Still, it seems like the same sort of catalog can be written up about any organized human endeavor and the fact that organized religions are not free of the human stain hardly surprises.
What is surprising is the extent to which Hitchens' goes to leave no saint unblemished. Why he chooses to blame Indian partition on Gandhi, when Gandhi advocated contra Jinnah for a united India is beyond me.
Similar is the portrayal of Mother Teresa as an opportunistic nun I am sure the people she served wish there were more such opportunists. I suspect Mother Teresa is cast in such an unfavorable light more from the antipathy Hitchens feels for his fellow polemicist Malcolm Muggeridge, who first filmed her, than anything she's done.
In Hitchens estimation Muggeridge is an idiot as are most people he disagrees with. I suppose an atheist will find most of this comforting, though he may be pricked by a niggling doubt a similar doubt to the doubt a theist such as myself has when reading some of C.
Lewis' work that the case for atheism is just a little too easily made here. View all 24 comments. Obviously, anyone who can write a less-than-flattering book about Mother Teresa is not concerned with offending anyone.
More or less, here's the rub: "God" explained a lot, back before we had Science and The Enlightenment, and now, humanity suffers at the hand of religious zealots whose battles spill over into the lives of the innocent.
And one point that I'm sure would make my mother cry: it is possible to live a moral and good life without "God.
So, while I've disagreed with some his past books and ideas, this is one that fellow misanthropic humanists would do well to read.
I'm reminded of a favorite Bill Hicks quote: "Humans? We're a virus with shoes. View all 17 comments. A few days ago, a storm rolled through where I live and knocked out our power for a few hours and our internet for an entire day.
The power outage shut down my PS4, and the update ended up becoming corrupted, along with my harddrive. I lost all my data. The PS4 had to be A few days ago, a storm rolled through where I live and knocked out our power for a few hours and our internet for an entire day.
The PS4 had to be returned to factory settings and the HDD wiped in safe mode before we could so much as load a game.
Certain games would not work without first installing updates online, so I took my console to my mother's house she has a different internet provider than us; one that came right back up after the storm.
Now for a little backstory: My mother, who lives on my land in a separate trailer, sometimes piggybacks off our internet because her ISP Xfinity has a 10gb data cap.
We have a gb cap. Any time she gets close she hops over to the extended network and uses ours. No biggie.
Share and share alike. I said, "Why not. Sounds good to me. I'm over her place, updating my PS4, and my mother says to me, "I think this is a sign from God that I should keep my internet.
My being an atheist has long upset her, and this book would likely give her a stroke because it logically argues against every religion and religious practice known to man.
Best of all, Hitchens discusses the foundation of all religion: solipsism. And before you cry foul at how terrible I treat my mother and her fragile religious beliefs, you should know that I buy her groceries and cook her dinner every night because she can't afford to do so herself.
Why can't she support herself? You guessed it, she blows her food money on tithing at a church whose members didn't so much as call her when she broke two ribs and fractured a third.
They sure as shit sent her a tithe reminder in the mail, though, which she gladly returned with check enclosed. And yes, they had been informed of her fall and injuries.
Classy buncha assholes, huh? My point is, I'm there for her when her god isn't, yet he still gets the credit. I think only an atheist can appreciate how annoying that is, to be the bad guy because I don't believe in her invisible man of choice even though I do everything in my power to make sure she has everything she needs.
I feel like a parent supporting their child's drug addiction. Oh well. Thanks for listening to me vent. To be clear, most atheists are atheists because they already know the information in this book.
But if you're looking to further your education, or intend to attempt to dissuade a loved one from religion, or plan to attempt to erase the brainwashing of an indoctrinated child, I recommend reading this first.
Hitchens cites all sources and argues intelligently against ignorant beliefs and silly superstitions. But I think my favorite part of the book is how accurately he displays the dangerous nature of all religions and not just extremist secs.
All religions are poisonous, taken to the extreme or not. The only rational argument for them is how effective they are at controlling the uneducated masses.
Final Judgment: Required reading. View all 22 comments. In his later years, Christopher Hitchens developed a habit of loudly declaiming about subjects that he had little specific knowledge about.
Departing from his career as a journalist, during the mids Hitchens began an entirely new adventure as an amateur philosopher of sorts. The decrepit old garments of thoug In his later years, Christopher Hitchens developed a habit of loudly declaiming about subjects that he had little specific knowledge about.
The decrepit old garments of thought were - finally - about to be cast aside by a group of intrepid journalists and scientists.
A new age of enlightenment was dawning. In retrospect the whole thing looks to have been a poorly-informed fad, as a few educated people had tried to point out at the time.
I generally viewed Hitchens as the most complex of the group, even though I disagreed with him, mainly because of his journalistic background.
He knew a little something about the world, much more so than Harris to say the least. I figured he was at least entitled to have a shot at making his grand philosophical case about things.
Hitchens does not understand religion and does not appear to be familiar with the philosophical underpinnings of the modern world, at all.
He goes to great lengths to note all the terrible things done by people in the name of religion all over the world, all history, all religions, in about pages , which is easy enough and could be done with anyone having access to Wikipedia.
As terrible as the Balkan Wars were, and as decent a journalist as Hitchens was during them, to distill it to religious atavism is so glaringly myopic that I can hardly believe that Hitchens himself believes this.
He does not engage with the depth of any of the traditions he critiques. He raises questions as though he is the first person ever to think of them and does not even appear to be interested in the answers.
I was really looking for this book to just be an enjoyable read and I have to say I was disappointed.
I also have a brief comment about the aesthetic quality of Hitchens writing, which is praised in breathless terms every time his name comes up.
Yes he is a capable writer and has written some eloquent things in his career. Despite a few nice turns of phrase this book however is very disjointed and not pleasing in a literary sense.
An ostensibly serious book about a serious topic can also be undermined by too many flowery obfuscations.
This really needs to be an ornament to the argument rather than a substitute for it though. View all 21 comments.
Surprisingly, I wasn't beguiled by this book as much as I thought I would be. I like Hitchens's irreverent delivery on everything -- but this seemed to fall rather flat.
Or at least, "flattish". Couldn't quite put my finger on it, except to say that it seems that any kind of sustained rant has the immediate effect of getting me to tune out.
A rant is a good thing -- get it off your chest, say what you have to say, with good points to back it all up, and then move on.
Hitchens lingers on the pag Surprisingly, I wasn't beguiled by this book as much as I thought I would be. Hitchens lingers on the page just a little too long and makes me feel that not only does religion poison everything, but so do clever intellectuals.
Know thyself -- and know when to shut up -- are worthier conceits than verbal diarrhea. I felt much this way in viewing Bill Maher's Religulous.
Clever, acerbic, funny, to-the-point: but then he just didn't know where to stop. Hammer to the head, over and over -- and over -- again The irony of that!
I agree with everything Hitchens and Maher says, but for me, once is enough. That is, tell me once, I learn my lesson and move on.
That being said, he does leave the believers with a lot of food for thought in this simple quote: Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.
I note, with some temerity, that those words are not applicable only to religion, however, but to the state of political figures making their rise in today's world.
Change the title to Man is Not Great, and it would be more applicable. View all 9 comments. Up til a few hundred years ago, religion used to be our way of understanding all the shit we didn't have answers for - which was a lot There were gods we could try to please or mollify by killing things, and then harass for military, climatic and antiviral favors.
It usually didn't amount to m Up til a few hundred years ago, religion used to be our way of understanding all the shit we didn't have answers for - which was a lot It usually didn't amount to much, but one lucky break in 50 is enough to keep faith alive for the desperate.
The gods were like us, capricious and selfish. Then it was god, singular, for very specific and random reasons; archaeologists and anthropologists are still finding fun new evidence to confuse themselves with, which I'll get to in a moment.
In the monotheistic beginning, god wasn't any better than the gods that came as a matching set. He had his own crew, and still acted like a mercurial, genocidal dick.
It really wasn't until years ago that Christianity made excuses for his temper tantrums, and repainted Yahweh as a kind and loving god, despite a shitload of evidence to the contrary.
If god existed, why would anyone think this twat deserved 'faith'? Seen objectively, the god of the Old Testament is the best argument against 'faith' around.
Any ideology that makes a virtue of willful ignorance, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, needs to be killed with napalm.
He wasn't capricious or cruel. He was fair and loving He felt bad about it the morning after, though And an awesome goat. This new-and-improved, loving and caring, monotheistic 'Yahweh' supposedly wasn't governed by human faults and weaknesses, even if he let it slip to Moses we were created in his image.
It may seem ridiculous from a modern POV, but it all seemed sensible to them. And Christians, Jews and Muslims are still in denial about this murderous piece of shit.
Insecurity is definitely a part of the divine character, since he constantly needs reassurances that we love him, even after the douchebag kills our cats and grandmothers.
It's always our fault; 'it's not you, God, it's me'. Those tens of thousands of babies that die every day obviously have it coming for their sins.
If god's so dead-set against abortion, maybe he should prove it by not killing the children of parents who wanted to start a family.
So contrary to whatever his biographers and publicity agents have been telling us for several millennia, god's just as flaky and mercurial as Jupiter and, well Looking back at all the genocidal and sadistic Old Testament tantrums - Sodom and Gomorrah, the Flood, cursing several billion people to pain and death because their great-great-great-great-etc.
Every bit of suffering in the universe was his doing, yet we're still supposed to thank him for shoving this shit sandwich down our collective throat, to grovel and smile and beg for vague nothings via prayer.
If you're Unplug it, plug it back in, and pray harder, ferfucksake. Are you certain you've done everything right? There you go, you're too proud of your righteousness.
That's not it? For the desperate and the stupid, faith is invulnerable to reason. What would you think of a person who bought an ant farm, then tossed it into the furnace a day later because the ants wouldn't tap-dance when he asked politely?
God's nuttiness is several orders of magnitude more severe. Thank god for not existing. Now that all those answers religion provided are no longer needed - and wrong about absolutely everything - it's only purpose is to whisper bullshit in the ear of the 'troubled soul', and provide reasons for humanity to kill itself over long outdated lies.
We might as well murder each other over slight historical disagreements about Santa Claus. Elves or gnomes? Reindeer or caribou?
Scarlet red or cherry red? View all 40 comments. Oct 03, J. I'm not preachy on religion, and everybody has their own take on spirituality and their own beliefs, which is how it should be.
View 2 comments. Shelves: politics , favorites. I knew that he was an atheist, but because of my own spritual searching I was reluctant to read this book when it first came out.
I finally picked up the book because I have been on a non-fiction binge lately and I knew that by reading his book I was guaranteed an intelligent treatise.
By the time I finished the book, I was very glad that I had read it. Hitchens doesn't so much attack God as he attacks religion.
He begins the book by describing himself as a boy, learning passages from the Bible, and the moment he felt that there must not be a God because of a comment his teacher makes.
The tales of his boyhood experiences with religion and atheism are used for making his one of his thesis -- that organized religion ruins everything.
He points out that it seems one goal of organized religion is to make humans relinquish independent and rational thought. One of the great things about the book is that the chapters are clearly and concisely laid out.
In fact, I found the chapter sequence to be quite methodical. As is his usual trait when Hitchens is arguing against something, he builds his arguments gradually and strongly.
Right after I bought the book I read online that many people who considered themselves evangelical have bought the book in a sort of know-thy-enemy way.
I wonder if they felt like they any kind of rebuttal, because Hitchens -- through his extensive readings and reportage -- has built a historically sound case against the three organized religions.
It is worthy to note, while Hitchens does deride some of the beliefs and practices of the big three, he does not sneer of the entirety of the faiths.
He knows that there are good people in these faiths who only wish to do good. It the people who take their faiths to the extremes and misinterpret the written word that Hitchens takes most issue with.
My only critique is that I do not think he addressed the evolution vs creationism as effectively as he could have. He makes mention of it several times, but does not explore it deeply.
Otherwise anyone with any kind of brainpower should read this book. View all 7 comments. When my friends or the new people I'm acquainted with find out that I am an atheist ,they tend to raise their eyebrows or purse their lips.
She insisted that I believ When my friends or the new people I'm acquainted with find out that I am an atheist ,they tend to raise their eyebrows or purse their lips.
She insisted that I believe in him. Inculcated in militant character,I explained my side in flagrant defiance. As a result, we had had heated debates many times; our friendship almost turned to ice in view of our irrepressibly acrimonious opinions.
Christopher Hitchens is one of the major influences on my being an apostate. It was still unintelligible to me since I read its free PDF.
That's why I was not even able to write my review of it. Besides, I was not scholarly ready yet to give my thoughts of it; it needs deeper assimilation.
The result? A book that believers must find ridiculous beyond logical explanation, a big threat to their incessantly dominant indoctrination.
In the end, what Hitchens wanted to point out, the way I see it overall, is that there has been a culture of ignorance in that people conform to the facts they find universal.
Go figure! I've been an avowed atheist for four years, since I read some books dealing with atheism. So, comparatively speaking, I would say that my life is better than before.
I am now comfortable to live the way I want. I don't need to conform to religious customs I find paradoxical. Rather, I lead my life based on what I know what is right for the sake of humanity.
I might call it the " universal conscience". And don't even dare tell me that conscience is a godly gift. No wonder Hitchens strongly believes that religion kills everything.
I believe that these books are the springboard for breaking all the spells that have been binding you for a long time.
Good luck and let me know then about your thoughts of them. Happy reading! View all 15 comments. He covers everything with the same feelings I have but he has a powerful writing style and better vocabulary.
He presents a great message! This book received two stars because of the writing. Hitchens writes well. I could have given it five stars for the value it holds for the Christian community - it serves as easy target practice.
It is too bad that I only have characters at my disposal. Otherwise, I would love to go through this book in painstaking detail, pointing out the flabby and flaccid naked emperor while we all point and laugh at how confident the ignorant, intellectually naked emperor struts up and down the street.
T This book received two stars because of the writing. There has always been a power struggle between the clear, cogent, and well-reasoned arguments of the philosopher on the one hand, and the bottom-feeding sophist on the other.
Hitchens proudly stands in the line of the latter. Hitchens doesn't bother to define "god," "religion," "poison," and how it poisons "everything. He and his ilk have already defeated the theist fair and square, no need to take care in how well you argue.
Indeed, so sure is Hitchens of the truth of his conclusion that he barely deals with any thing a Christian thinker has had to say, besides Paley.
Oh, I think he mentions Agustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Newman, just for the purpose of pointing out that they have written "evil and foolish things.
I'm saying that he didn't engage them. Not only that, but his approach is double minded. For example, he begins by saying that the religious adherent is "the intended reader of this book.
Bearbeitungszeit: ms. Synonym "ungünstigerweise" melden. Synonyme Bilder Gute Nacht Kostenlos und nach ungünstigerweise. Synonyme Bedeutung ungünstigerweise Synonyme ungünstigerweise. Niederländisch Deutsch - Synonyme Französisch. Einen anderen Grund angeben Das Anliegen ist nicht aufgelistet. Erweitere deine Wortschatz mit dem Vokabeltrainer.
Ungünstigerweise Human contributions Video
Hohlkreuz Ursachen - Hohlkreuz verstehen und erkennen I Schöner Fernsehen Alternative have given it five New Kids Turbo Stream for the value it holds for the Christian community - it serves as easy target practice. Open Preview See a Problem? Unfortunately, the author phrases this as the fallacious "religion poisons everything. Any time she gets close she hops over to the extended network and uses ours. He synthesizes a tremendous amount of research from history, philosophy, science and current events, and he argues that "religion poisons Vivian Maier I'm probably going to Soog some hateful comments by trying to write a review of this Ungünstigerweise, but I think Arkenstein would be proud that I am making the attempt. As a radical atheist, I'm confused.
Nein, ich kann Ihnen nicht sagen.
Wer Ihnen hat es gesagt?
Unvergleichlich)))))))