mikecross's review against another edition
3.0
Inspirational to a point, but the author seems a little too angry and a little too self promotional. Most readers do not need to be convinced, but that's what we get.
manuelte's review against another edition
5.0
Clear, actionable, reaffirming. On the surface it is about dispelling the lie of god and allowing us to make rational decisions without the crutch of myths; in reality it is much more about equality and the much needed separation of church (any church) and state.
techwoo's review against another edition
2.0
I get it that the US are the author's world, but that doesn't mean that his manifesto addresses the world. Two stars says it was ok (a bit boring for those who are not citizens of the US, I'd say). Yet it was nowhere near Christopher Hitchens' "God is not great".
iggymcmuffin's review against another edition
1.0
Silverman's definition of Religion is a terrible one. Reminiscent of E.B. Tylor, you have to believe in God to have religion, but that leaves out countless religious groups that don't believe in God like the majority of Confucians, Daoists, Buddhists, and countless smaller materialistic religious groups (that don't/didn't believe in the supernatural at all) including Heaven's Gate and the Raelians. Silverman would do well to take a course from his local university in Religious Studies or Sociology of Religion in order to understand the problems inherent in defining religion and get some ideas about how to repair his definition.
Silverman also repeatedly says all religious people bring their morals to their religion, rather than getting them from religion. All religions are cafeteria religions. People pick and choose which and how they follow various scriptures and commandments. The problem is that he also says Islam the worst religion of all because of it's scriptures. Which is it? Either Muslims infuse their religion with their personal beliefs (like everyone else) or religion does provide moral teachings. The cognitive dissonance is plain to see.
He also claims the religious 'nones' as atheists, because anyone who doesn't believe in organized religion is practically an atheist. This is an incredibly misleading and problematic statement, as anyone with a passing familiarity with sociology of religion will know. After he says it I had trouble paying attention to the rest of the chapter, which is full of sketchy math, because that fundamental assumption is so wrong. Never mind the the math itself assumes a number of things it shouldn't.
There are some editing problems too. At one point theirs a cartoon of Silverman peeing on a Christian cross with no explanation of why it's present. It doesn't seem to make sense in context, and could be taken in multiple different ways. Did he like the cartoon? Or is it an example of something he thought was an unfair response to his lawsuits? I have no idea, and the book doesn't say. At another part there's a grey-scale line graph with at least five different shades of grey and no other way to distinguish the lines, making the graph impossible to read. Clearly just a poorly converted colour graph.
His best chapters are about building an atheist movement, boundary work, and on atheist activism, but everything he's written I've already heard from presentations he's given. There's no new content here if you're at all familiar with his arguments for why we should identify as "atheists".
Silverman also repeatedly says all religious people bring their morals to their religion, rather than getting them from religion. All religions are cafeteria religions. People pick and choose which and how they follow various scriptures and commandments. The problem is that he also says Islam the worst religion of all because of it's scriptures. Which is it? Either Muslims infuse their religion with their personal beliefs (like everyone else) or religion does provide moral teachings. The cognitive dissonance is plain to see.
He also claims the religious 'nones' as atheists, because anyone who doesn't believe in organized religion is practically an atheist. This is an incredibly misleading and problematic statement, as anyone with a passing familiarity with sociology of religion will know. After he says it I had trouble paying attention to the rest of the chapter, which is full of sketchy math, because that fundamental assumption is so wrong. Never mind the the math itself assumes a number of things it shouldn't.
There are some editing problems too. At one point theirs a cartoon of Silverman peeing on a Christian cross with no explanation of why it's present. It doesn't seem to make sense in context, and could be taken in multiple different ways. Did he like the cartoon? Or is it an example of something he thought was an unfair response to his lawsuits? I have no idea, and the book doesn't say. At another part there's a grey-scale line graph with at least five different shades of grey and no other way to distinguish the lines, making the graph impossible to read. Clearly just a poorly converted colour graph.
His best chapters are about building an atheist movement, boundary work, and on atheist activism, but everything he's written I've already heard from presentations he's given. There's no new content here if you're at all familiar with his arguments for why we should identify as "atheists".
dcp374's review against another edition
5.0
Great read for atheist and theist alike. Highly recommend to anyone interested in the secular movement.
richard_lawrence's review against another edition
5.0
I was really looking forward to this book getting released and I wasn't disappointed. I've was fortunate to get to spend some time with David when he was here in North Carolina and his message in person is the same as the message in this book. Atheists now comprise a significant portion of the population by any metrics you care to look at. We are fortunate here in the states to live under a secular government which guarantees religious freedom to all, believers and non-believers. But there are significant portions of the population who would want to change that and turn this nation into a theocracy, the unspoken assumption is that they get to be 'Theo' when this change occurs. It is our responsibility to fight for equality for all, not a privileged place for a single group. David describes himself as a 'Firebrand Atheist' and encourages us all to do the same. David makes a compelling and airtight case for doing so and, more importantly, shows how everyone can be an activist for reason and equality in many different ways. Can't recommend this book highly enough.
jimyster's review against another edition
4.0
David Silverman makes me laugh without even trying. I think most any Atheist can relate to him. IE, he does not capitalize the word atheist :-D He brings up some strong points and explains that it's not about being anti-theist, but rather not allowing religion forced into everyone's life. He covers a lot of different ground. I would recommend reading.
mesy's review against another edition
5.0
Wow, for David Silverman's first book, it is quite an easy enjoyable read. It uses plain language that isn't complex but it doesn't dumb things down nor does it feel condescending. In fact, I can probably imagine that he enjoyed writing 'dick' s many times. And reading that I've been called a dick or act dick-ish was also fun to read cause it is such a good phrase because it made the text feel like a friendly conversation rather than a formal read.
Silverman encourages us, atheist, to love as an open atheist and it changed my mind on some things. One to live a more open atheist life. Asked and it will be answered: I am an atheist. Another is to work on getting out of religious rituals that family engages in that I do not want to participate in (and find ridiculous) like pray before eating dinner (and sometimes lunch like my nephew insists on doing).
The pros of this book are the ability to feel at home with the text. It personable and is just plain friendly while also getting the message across.n Yet there is a con to this book that doesn't have to do with the text itself- just with the size. The graphs are rather small and even though I am used to reading micro pint in part because of my handwriting, the graphs are just hard to appreciate due to size. Maybe if Silverman just blew up each graph to be a page each it would have been a better way to understanding the points Silverman made within the text.
Silverman encourages us, atheist, to love as an open atheist and it changed my mind on some things. One to live a more open atheist life. Asked and it will be answered: I am an atheist. Another is to work on getting out of religious rituals that family engages in that I do not want to participate in (and find ridiculous) like pray before eating dinner (and sometimes lunch like my nephew insists on doing).
The pros of this book are the ability to feel at home with the text. It personable and is just plain friendly while also getting the message across.n Yet there is a con to this book that doesn't have to do with the text itself- just with the size. The graphs are rather small and even though I am used to reading micro pint in part because of my handwriting, the graphs are just hard to appreciate due to size. Maybe if Silverman just blew up each graph to be a page each it would have been a better way to understanding the points Silverman made within the text.