Everything You Know About God is Wrong: The Disinformation Guide to Religion by Russ Kick

Everything You Know About God is Wrong: The Disinformation Guide to Religion Reviews

• 
  Luke

  Let me begin by stating that this book, as a whole, does NOT deserve the two stars given. The whole is less than the sum of its parts. Four chapters are worth reading. Those chapters are worthy of a four or five star review, but the rest is vacuous drivel used to fill out a couple hundred useless pages.
  
  The first good bit is a refutation of the idea that the US is a Christian nation. While I found this chapter quite interesting, detailed, and well argued it has nothing to do with the title of the book (Everything You Know About God is Wrong). This is not about false theistic ideas, this is about misconceptions relating to the country and its government.
  
  I also enjoyed the section on the posting of The Ten Commandments (although this section suffers from the same problem as the last: it isn't about God so much as about people and government). There have been politicians, seemingly in greater numbers and of stronger conviction, who want to post the biblical commandments because they are from the "highest authority." The problems with this are numerous (not including the separation of church and state), but I'll just name a few. One, to post a monument (idol) of any kind is to break the second commandment which forbids making any graven image: posting The Ten Commandments would actually be breaking one of the commandments (just like saluting the flag, another form of idol worship that should be forbidden if you take the commandments at their word). This self-contradictory position should be nothing new to people who read the Bible though. Second, let's look back at the first commandment: Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me. Is one specific God now being mandated by the government offices who propose posting these commandments? What of freedom of and from religion as promised in the first amendment? Which of these glorious documents should we follow, since they stand so opposed to one another? Third, what to do about those commandments against which we have no laws. The third commandment tells us not to swear, but enforcing that would limit Freedom of Speech. Commandment four says we can't work on the Sabbath, the fifth tells us to honor our parents (even if they REALLY don't deserve it?), and the tenth tells us not to covet our neighbors' things (interesting that the wife is listed among our neighbors' possessions). Want is what drives the capitalist free-market, if we should stop coveting, wouldn't that destroy our economy more than Obama ever could? Finally, if we should enforce the commandments, as recommended by the "good" book itself, we would have to kill those who break these ancient laws (at leat for 1-7).
  
  The other two sections of the book that I enjoyed--but will not be analyzing here--are "The God from Galilee," which recounts Jesus' contradictions, failures at prophecy, and his real message: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword," (Matt. 10:34), and "Who Wrote the Gospels?" which examines Biblical history, especially in regard to the Gospels, and ennumerates the ways in which the writings differ and contradict each other. This section also makes sure to illustrate the point that all evidence points to the fact that the Gospels were written well after (decades after) the death of Jesus and therefore wouldn't be eyewitness accounts, and they were not written by the men whose names appear in their titles (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).
  
  Now to begin with why this book is so terrible. I should start by saying that I am an atheist, so this book is preaching to the choir. Since I have read a few books that deal with much of the same material, perhaps it is harder to make an impression.
  
  The quality of the book varies from chapter to chapter, owing to the fact that this is a compilation of essays from various authors. Some are better writers than others, some are better rhetoricians.
  
  The book opens with the obligatory piece by Richard Dawkins. I like Dawkins. Usually. This particular piece contains all of the reasons that people dislike him (reasons other than he is an heretic). He denigrates those whose beliefs differ from his. He is smarmy. He is attempting to be clever (but fails in this case). He is out to prove he is smarter than those who might read his work. This last bit is probably true; he is probably more intelligent than most of us, but the way to ingratiate people to your cause is not to belittle their intelligence.
  
  Excepting the problems I've already discussed, there are two major problems with the arguments made in most of the rest of the book, though they are basically the same problem mirrored. There are several sections that detail the strange things that particular sects do to worship their gods. The book delves into snake-handlers, fecalpheliacs, pot-smokers, etc. One of the longer portions of this book is the "Philadelphia Grand Jury Report on Abusive Priests and the Cardinals Who Enabled Them." This is disturbing stuff, no doubt. It is also filler. No one had to write this for its inclusion in the book, the editor plucked it from the public record and deposited it to take up space and to attempt to prove a point. The problem is that his point is moot and has nothing at all to do with god. None of the stories of the strange, unconventional behaviors of any sect has anything to do with god. Yes, some people do disgusting things and they happen to be believers. That doesn't solve anything and it isn't an argument any more than those who try to taint atheists by pointing out that Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot were non-believers. The fact that a minority of people in a group perform outrageous or reprehensible acts does not mean that by extension all people of that group are guilty. I don't want to be judged as an atheist for the acts of Stalin.
  
  The mirrored side of this problem are the sections of the books that try to make some sort of argument based on the anecdotes of professed atheists. Anecdotal evidence is not permissible in such an argument. Believers, too, have plenty of anecdotal "evidence" that hasn't convinced us, why then, should our anecdotes be used to try to win them?
  
  To summarize the argumentative problems above, both scenarios attempt to take a minority (or singular in the second case) worldview and apply it to some whole: 1) A few people do this, so they all do it and are therefore evil/wrong/stupid. 2) This happened to me so you should feel like this too.
  
  The rest of the book is filled with sections on sex and how it is viewed by different religions, and absolutely pointless things like a list of non-believing musical composers and performers. Who cares? The worst part from this list is the mention of Mozart. The section is called "It Ain't Necessarily So: Music's Debt to Nonbelievers." They list Mozart among these nonbelievers and paint him as such in the first part of the blurb about the man, and then admit that he was "probably not an atheist." The compiler of this list is being disingenuous at best.
  
  Another pointless section of this book has to do with the plagiarism claims and lawsuits against Dan Brown for The Da Vinci Code. Again, who cares?
  
  If you're interested, as a believer or an atheist, in reading books of this sort, I'd recommend avoiding this one (or only reading the sections mentioned at the start of this review). Instead look for George H. Smith's
  Atheism: The Case Against God, or Richard Dawkins'
  The God Delusion.
• 
  Keith Bowden

  I'm almost finished with this, so I can start to talk about it. This is a collection of many different essays (and one comic story) about various religions, factions of religions, details in religious literature (Bible, Q'uran), art and some truly fucked up people doing crazy things in the name of religion or in the name of greed. I wish it had the normal dimensions of a regular book, though. (Although Neil Gaiman & Steve Gibson's comic was already reduced in size; it would have been really hard to read if it were smaller.)
  
  Want to read about the goof ball who built a mechanical Messiah in 1854? Did you know that bowling was originally a religious game? (I guess thunder really is angels bowling...) It's even got snapshots of the lives of some of America's (and the world's) greatest composers.
  
  There's a chapter that discusses the known facts and the theories on who wrote the gospels and when. (It's common knowledge among Bible scholars that it was not the men they are named for.)
  
  One thing I find utterly fascinating is religious folk who try to come up with actual physiological reasons for miracles (the water Jesus walked on had flash-frozen, the Red Sea was parted by wind, etc...) Isn't the whole point of magic and miracles that it isn't a natural phenomenon? If you can explain the miracles in the Bible scientifically, then they aren't miracles. What's the point in that?
  
  Some people try to take the Bible too literally - and I don't just mean religious folk with cognitive dissonance regarding the contradictions in the Bible, I mean my fellow atheists who rip into every little detail with no regard as to context. And honestly, if you believe in a magical man in the sky, there's no problem with a virgin birth any more than there's a problem with Harry Potter flying on a broomstick.
  
  Then there was the coverage of the plaigarism trial for The Da Vinci Code (the guy who wrote it had a touch of the context problem I mentioned above). This was pretty good, and really the only really unbelievable thing about The Da Vinci Code is how a hack like Dan Brown (or rather, his publishers, since they were the ones on trial) wasn't found guilty to the Nth degree.
  
  I drew a line when it came to the chapter on poopies of the gods. I don't care what American Indians, holy rollers, Jesus, Roman or Egyptian gods did (or was done) with their excrement, I'm just passing through. (This chapter was written in the 19th century, FYI.)
  
  Most disturbing wasn't the story of a man giving his young daughter and another man's wife to a crowd to rape and murder
  (rather than raping and murdering the aforementioned man, who was his guest, a story from Judges 19) but the highlights from the Philadelphia Grand Jury Report On Abusive Priests. Brrrr.
  
  This was (largely) a fun book with much information, definitely a keeper for future reference.
• 
  Taylor Chaos

  Okay, where do I start... First of there is a lot of information in this book.
  I read a review by a religious person,(I assume) which said that they were trying to sound like 'hip and cool'. I have to agree with that, I didn't like how it was trying to appeal to the 'cool youngsters'. Don't get me wrong whatever helps you sell a book I guess I don't mind. What bothered me about that, is that those 'cool youngsters' that the book felt like it was targeting isn't the people that would pick up this book and read it, or like it.
  
  Aside from that, it brings some points that other anti-religion books do not. For that alone, made the long audiobook, (because I can't really read, with dyslaxia and all) worth it. I honestly felt myself dragging through it, but a part of me, (the part that no longer believes in the God/Religion, I was indoctrinated into) wanted to just finish it and get it out of the way. I learned things about not just the religion I used to follow, but others that I didn't know as well as I thought I did. I think it was worth a read, especially if you are one of those people who is anti-religious or are strong enough to listen to why some people don't want to be a part of your religion, and they tell you to read this book and not lose faith.
• 
  Cat.

  Well. Where to start?
  
  Some of the essays included in this were interesting; in fact, most were thought-provoking and worthwhile. There were a couple though...whew. Oh my God (pun intended).
  Paper tigers created? check
  Facile arguments? check
  Mispronounced words? check ("KapperNYAYum" for "Capernaum"? Really?)
  
  I'm becoming increasingly annoying that when people argue about "Christians" or "religion" the Typical Christian/Religious Person is a completely unethical moron. Sure, there are moronic and amoral Christians, but there are a lot more of us who are neither.
  
  The best essay is the longest, which is the summation of findings of the investigation into the Catholic diocese in Philadelphia around child sexual abuse. Absolutely the most disgusting, difficult thing I've ever listened to. It shook me to the core that the Church ignored this for decades and turned a blind eye to the destruction of children's souls.
  
  The other very good essay is about the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland. Another case of the Church having a lot to answer for.
  
  Short version: people suck, and power corrupts, inside as well as outside of religion.
• 
  Lumax

  A real eye opener - on so many levels
• 
  D.M.

  This is my fifth Disinformation book, and every one has been its own unique pleasure.
  Editor Russ Kick has here once again assembled a varied collection of new and previously-published work, with a focus this time on religion. Pieces range from the garish glory of
  Neil Gaiman and
  Steve Gibson's 'Journey to Bethlehem' (from
  Outrageous Tales From The Old Testament) to
  Lawrence E. Gichner's scholarly 'Voluptuous Ecstasy on the Temple' (reprinted from his out-of-print Erotic Aspects of Hindu Culture), with points everywhere in between ranging from the sardonic wit of
  Richard Dawkins to the...unpleasant compilation of holy faeces from
  John G. Bourke. Though there is a definite emphasis here on Christianity, Kick has made an honest attempt to be inclusive; there are articles on Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism and Islam.
  Being a collection, this can not win every step of the way, but for the curious reader there will always be something. Whether looking for opinions or scholarly research, ephemera or intellectual reinforcement, readers with an interest in religion (and a very open mind) are bound to be rewarded here more than disappointed.
• 
  Ailith Twinning

  This is a weird damn book.
  
  The articles are kinda all over the place, there is no coherent point to bringing them together, there is no thru-line narrative or argument. It's like weird drive-bys and a couple of them are genuinely unsettling.
  
  Learn about the crimes of humanity, yes, but do so from pleasant people. That's the reason Chomsky is such a treasure -- somehow, he's just so calm.
• 
  Bradford

  A couple of short essays by some of the leading critical thinkers of our time followed by page after page of padding in the form of half-ass collections of repetitive schlock.
  
• 
  John Michael Strubhart

  This remarkable collection of essays and articles are built around a theme of religion and theology. Included are practices, habits and activities of churches and other religious groups as well as essays on matters of religion, scriptural texts, theology and attitudes supported by beliefs. Here are some of the topics covered:
  
  *Is the US a Christian nation?
  *Why doesn't the Bible condemn slavery?
  *The Philadelphia Grand Jury Report of priest pedophilia.
  *Creationism/Intelligent Design.
  *Can atheists be moral?
  *Religious curses.
  *Pseudoarcheology.
  *The use of poop in religious practices.
  *Why is there a confessional box?
  *What do various religious texts say about sexual practices?
  *Exorcism
  *Books about religion and religious texts.
  
  I learned much from reading this book and while not everything I knew about various gods was wrong, a lot of it was wrong or just absent. If you're not too chicken to do so, read this book.
  
• 
  Libbie

  This book isn't about whether god is real or not, but rather about why a nation can not and should not be ran by our religious faiths. It brings together different essays that point out the many different happening under the name of religion around the world. It doesn't focus on one religion being better than the other, nor does it lay fault on religion at a whole but rather by pointing out the faults of many different religions pulling from mere facts, written within scripture, as well as historical moments in man's story it brings to light why everyone is wrong and no one is right. All while pointing out the greatness of man at the same time.
  At times it can be very hard to read, and many other times you find yourself unable to put it down.
• 
  David

  I'll be honest - I didn't finish this book. It's a large collection of essays, and they really vary in quality. There's a quite good one on religion and the (US) Founding Fathers. There are also awful ones, like the pages and pages prepared in an investigation of pedophile Catholic priests. It's not that the investigation wasn't important, but the result is something that most people do not need or want to read (unless you believe - as some of the parents did - that priests are incapable of awful behavior).
• 
  Jessica

  Due to the fact that this book is a collection of articles by many different authors it was too inconsistent for me to find enjoyable. Some of the articles were top notch with lots of good information and insight. Other articles were so boring that I found myself screaming, who the hell cares?!?! This was especially true of the more acute subject matter articles. They were almost too specialized for general consumption. Other articles seemed to have no point or relevance and I often wondered why they were included in this book.
• 
  Sonia

  Words can not describe how much I hated this book. The proper title should be, "talking shit about religion, but mostly Christianity, in a way that is supposed to be amusing and hip but is just annoying", or something. I can count the number of interesting, well written essay included here on one hand. I was hoping to learn something; instead, I just got dumped on by a bunch of people who clearly have issues with organized religion. Though I did learn that I'm not actually agnostic- I'm an atheist who's just too much of a pussy to say it!
• 
  Denise

  Extensively researched & documented. Dispensing with theory and dogma, this book goes where wise men have often feared to tread. How the big 3 religions curse their enemies...the thinly veiled anti-Semitism in the LEFT BEHIND novels. That the songwriter who wrote "God Bless America" was an atheist. That Mozart, Beethoven, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, Strauss, Scott Joplin, Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, were either atheists or non-religious humans. Details, anecdotes and "insider information"...a real eye-opener!
• 
  April (The Steadfast Reader)

  Not a bad collection of essays on religion and spirituality. Like all collections there are some really good essays and some really bad ones. I would recommend skipping the last section of the book as it is poorly written and doesn't even attempt to be objective.
  
  The book presents a good cross-section for the Big Five religions.
  
  Try it.
• 
  Dionne

  So far, this book has a lot of information in it that I've never read anywhere else before. It's not like a novel or anything of that nature. It's more like a compilation of essays written from various perspectives. Very interesting so far
• 
  Elizabeth

  The summary of the Grand Jury report on the coverups of pedophile priests is stunning in its detail and horrifying. There is a graphic novel type chapter that will be very offensive to some.
• 
  Rich

  So far, I'm loving this book... it's more a reference of articles and grand jury decisions than a linear argument.
• 
  Emily

  This book was kind of a grab bag of religious facts and information, some more interesting than others. Truly enjoyed being disinformed.
• 
  Chad

  interesting reference book.
• 
  Juliann

  What I do know, is that with the exception of one or two of the essays, this was God-awful.
• 
  Jennifer

  I was excited to read this book, but was a little disappointed by the text-bookness of it.
  It covers all religion and is fascinating. But it is also a little more sexy than I expected...
• 
  Elise Love

  Wow- I learned lots form this book. Worth reading again. Consists of short articles by different people, many well-known, with differing perspectives but all are open-minded, as I recall.