Editor Reviews:

Product Description:
In the tradition of Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian and Sam Harris's recent bestseller, The End of Faith, Christopher Hitchens makes the ultimate case
against religion. 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. With eloquent clarity, 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.

Rating : - Sort of on the right track, but jibberish: TRASHY THEORY which HURTS the cause. NO FACT, NO PROOF.
Besides the fact that Hitchens's premise equates his BELIEF in a non-existent "God" with religion -- which is far from the truth (G*d is not religious, what a radical idea!) -- his writing is far too pseudo-intellectually written in faux Old English, circa 1700. Very, very difficult to read. You'll have to read every sentence 3 or 4 or 5 times. (And yet, I have a post-graduate degree.) His thoughts are all over the place. He refers to things like "it," or "the book," or "that" and we have no idea to what he is referring without careful study and rereading.

He gets his facts wrong as well. For example, jumping to page 113 (just bad luck, I guess), he refers to "Barbelo" in the Nag Hammadi Library as "a heavenly destination, a motherland beyond the stars," whereas it is correctly defined as a non-visible, feminine intermediary ASPECT of the divine, a "REALM" from which "Christ" comes--or IS. (It is actually a very poetic reference to something very real, something you can find out about in detail in an Amazon book that CHANGED MY LIFE forever: "BRAINMAN-HOW ANCIENT MAN USED FORBIDDEN BRAIN SCIENCE TO CONTACT TRUE GOD & INVENT THE HOLY GRAIL.")

Strangely, Hitchens, in "God Is Not Great," refers to "God" and "Jesus" (for example) by name and as "He" as if "they" existed. This would be contradictory to his "principles" which he presents. Perhaps the only thing he is correct about (right from the beginning) is that religion is HARMFUL. Unfortunately, he also equates religion with God, which is NOT correct. Religion is NOT God, God is NOT religion, and God is not religious.

"God Is Not Great?" Which God? See, like most atheists, he actually DOES believe in only one God--the "God" the religious define as "God"--and then proceeds to reject it. This not only doesn't make sense, but precludes pursuing any OTHER "God," as yet unknown by most, like the one from / in "Barbelo" as defined in "gospels" banned as heretical by the Catholic Church because it conflicts with their exclusive trademark on "God."

In the end, Hitchens merely presents more and more individual, unprovable BELIEFS and THEORIES rather than hard fact. What we need now is FACTUAL PROOF and we finally got it. (Click here if you're looking for facts and proof:)
BRAINMAN-HOW ANCIENT MAN USED FORBIDDEN BRAIN SCIENCE TO CONTACT TRUE GOD & INVENT THE HOLY GRAIL (Black & White Edition)

(Or here:)
BRAINMAN-HOW ANCIENT MAN USED FORBIDDEN BRAIN SCIENCE TO CONTACT TRUE GOD & INVENT THE HOLY GRAIL (Full-Color Edition)

And, like most atheists, Hitchens is just as firm in his BELIEFS (NOT FACTS) as religious people and far from open-minded. He places extreme FAITH in [his understanding of] present-day science, implicitly making the assumption that science knows everything. It DOESN'T. (In fact, everyday, scientists -- including medical scientists -- announce that they were wrong about yet another thing, having allegedly discovered something new, which tomorrow they will undoubtedly recant.) For someone to place 100% faith in science is just as irrational as placing faith in the dogma of an organized religion claiming to magically turn wine into blood and unleavened bread into flesh of a 2000-year-old, dead god-man. Apparently, Hitchens is unaware of the fact that, in the middle ages, the Catholic Church banned scientific study of various things and persecuted and executed those who disobeyed. This was an attempt to 1) erase a science that science now knows nothing about, and 2) distance "religion" from science, especially this FORBIDDEN science--which REVEALED the actual "realm of 'Christ'" (very different from Church dogma).

And what of Hitchens's own scientific credentials? He is a liberal arts "professor" at the highly acclaimed New School in Manhattan. Oh... He is also a part-time contributing writer at the highly scientific magazine "Vanity Fair." Please! Amazing how someone so unschooled in science can place so much FAITH in their own extremely limited understanding of the vast field science.

I find that different people will see the same work in different ways because their minds are too busy reading their OWN thoughts. Everything they see or read is "filtered" by their own constant internal debate. Author writes "blue" and person A reads "green" while person B reads "red." Whoever gave this a good review was seeing something different from what was actually on the page.

I will return this trash.

.