---
product_id: 1692857
title: "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything"
price: "HK$194"
currency: HKD
in_stock: true
reviews_count: 8
url: https://www.desertcart.hk/products/1692857-god-is-not-great-how-religion-poisons-everything
store_origin: HK
region: Hong Kong
---

# God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

**Price:** HK$194
**Availability:** ✅ In Stock

## Quick Answers

- **What is this?** God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
- **How much does it cost?** HK$194 with free shipping
- **Is it available?** Yes, in stock and ready to ship
- **Where can I buy it?** [www.desertcart.hk](https://www.desertcart.hk/products/1692857-god-is-not-great-how-religion-poisons-everything)

## Best For

- Customers looking for quality international products

## Why This Product

- Free international shipping included
- Worldwide delivery with tracking
- 15-day hassle-free returns

## Description

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything [Hitchens, Christopher] on desertcart.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

Review: Excellent - A tremendous book everyone should read. It articulates what so many people feel about religion. It’s really a love letter to reason and the world that could be had
Review: Seeking to explain, not to argue - [Repeated from my blog at geoffarnold.com] Over the last year, there have been three important books published on belief and non-belief : * Dan Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon * Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion * Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything I've already written - appreciatively - about the Dennett and Dawkins books, and I must admit that I approached Hitchens with some trepidation. After all, people have been lambasting Dawkins and others for their "intemperate" and "disrespectful" attacks on religion, and that's the kind of thing that seems likely to get Hitchens' juices flowing (metaphorically and literally). But I needn't have worried. First, let me say directly and unambiguously: this is a really good book. Hitchens is a mercurial toper, and he may be (nay, he is) dead wrong on Iraq, but he is a great writer. I find myself reading all of the book reviews that he writes, even if I have no interest whatsoever in the book, just for the pleasure of his prose. He is a literate writer, and he assumes that his readers will recognize quotations and literary allusions without having to be spoon-fed. And he achieves this in an utterly contemporary voice, without retreating into anachronism. So please buy this book, to keep the author well supplied with the vodka which seems to fuel his muse. We need more of his work. Enough of the style: what of the substance? I think that I can best describe my reaction to this book by considering the different uses to which I would put it and its two companions. If a committed theist asked me why she should pay attention to the "new atheism", I would give her Dennett's book. I would hope that she would realize that the modern world provides clear evidence of the diversity of beliefs and non-beliefs, and that perhaps she would agree that this was a subject worth studying, worth considering from outside her (probably exclusive) world-view. What explains belief? Why has belief changed over the years? I wouldn't expect to change her beliefs, but perhaps she could accept that belief and non-belief were legitimate subjects of inquiry. If I met a curious man, embedded in a religious tradition but uncertain of whether (or what) he believed, or if he might actually be losing his faith, I would give him Dawkins' The God Delusion. I'd be hoping that he could appreciate the role of science (and its stepchild, technology) in both understanding and creating the world in which he lives. It's not just iPods and cruise missiles, but also polio vaccine, and clean water, and instruments like the Hubble Space Telescope that help us understand our universe, and DNA sequencing that allows us to diagnose disease but also to see our place in the web of life on this planet. And I would hope that he might come to realize, with Carl Sagan, that the realities of the universe are far more majestic and beautiful than the myths of religion. But suppose that an old friend came to me and asked, "Why are you so fired up about atheism and religion these days? I remember you 15 years ago, and back then you were posting on alt.atheism, and having fun roasting creationists on talk.origins, and reading books on the philosophy of religion. But you didn't talk - and write - about it all the time, and you certainly didn't publically define yourself by your disbelief. So what happened?" Instead of trying to explain all of my reasons, I think I'd simply give them Hitchens' new book and say, "Read this. He puts it better than I ever could. I merely experience the occasional (but increasingly frequent) feelings of frustration, impatience, outrage, and even anger. Hitchens is an unequalled exponent of the art of the rant: he says what I feel, with passion, intensity and wit." This is not a book that seeks to convert. Its purpose is, first and foremost, to explain. To explain why atheists are no longer willing to sit meekly on our hands when the President of the United States says that I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens", or when the Archbishop of Canterbury excuses the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, or when Catholic cardinals and archbishops preach that condoms transmit AIDS. Yes, Hitchens also explains why he is an atheist, and the things that he finds mad, bad, or ridiculous about religion. Individual believers will naturally snort, and say that he's not talking about their belief, but that's not the point. He's not seeking to win a debate, or persuade the uncertain: he's laying out facts about the world and his opinions of those facts. And I agree with most of what he says. Perhaps because he is a student of history, and a former Marxist Trotskyite, Hitchens pays particular attention to what he calls An Objection Anticipated: The Last-Ditch "Case" Against Secularism. He's talking (p.230) about the charge that "secular totalitarianism has actually provided us with the summa of human evil." Hitchens' response is lengthy and detailed, and rejects the simplistic lumping-together of the various dictators of the 20th century. He describes how fascism and National Socialism co-opted religious institutions, which responded with unseemly enthusiasm. On the other hand, Communism in Russia and China had more in common with the anticlericalism of the French Revolution. Obviously Communists wished to eliminate any competing source of ideology or loyalty; beyond this, their secularism was less an expression of ontological atheism than of hatred towards the religious institutions which had supported the previous autocracies or imperialists. In fact, Communists were not trying to negate religion, but to replace it, complete with saints, heretics, mummies and icons. It's a complex topic that could fill an entire book, and Hitchens handles it very well. As you may have gathered by now, I really like this book. I really think that it's my favourite of the three, mostly because I learned more from it than the other two, and because it caught my mood so well. Of course there are many things to learn from Dennett and Dawkins, but I've been steeped in their works for the last twenty years, and I think I understand the world from their perspective. With his literary and historical bent, Hitchens provided an intriguingly different point of view. And, as I think I mentioned, the writing is simply superb.

## Technical Specifications

| Specification | Value |
|---------------|-------|
| Best Sellers Rank | #14,967 in Books ( See Top 100 in Books ) #2 in Atheism (Books) #11 in Religion & Philosophy (Books) #27 in Religious Philosophy (Books) |
| Customer Reviews | 4.6 4.6 out of 5 stars (9,942) |
| Dimensions  | 8 x 0.88 x 5.2 inches |
| ISBN-10  | 0446697966 |
| ISBN-13  | 978-0446697965 |
| Item Weight  | 2.31 pounds |
| Language  | English |
| Print length  | 336 pages |
| Publication date  | April 6, 2009 |
| Publisher  | Twelve |

## Images

![God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - Image 1](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/31MqGkNB7jL.jpg)
![God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - Image 2](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41-fGBtRuzL.jpg)
![God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - Image 3](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51kZF3sqxzL.jpg)
![God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - Image 4](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61x1+Z4HAZL.jpg)
![God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - Image 5](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71-7dFLrE5L.jpg)

## Customer Reviews

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Excellent
*by M***Z on December 22, 2025*

A tremendous book everyone should read. It articulates what so many people feel about religion. It’s really a love letter to reason and the world that could be had

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Seeking to explain, not to argue
*by G***D on May 13, 2007*

[Repeated from my blog at geoffarnold.com] Over the last year, there have been three important books published on belief and non-belief : * Dan Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon * Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion * Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything I've already written - appreciatively - about the Dennett and Dawkins books, and I must admit that I approached Hitchens with some trepidation. After all, people have been lambasting Dawkins and others for their "intemperate" and "disrespectful" attacks on religion, and that's the kind of thing that seems likely to get Hitchens' juices flowing (metaphorically and literally). But I needn't have worried. First, let me say directly and unambiguously: this is a really good book. Hitchens is a mercurial toper, and he may be (nay, he is) dead wrong on Iraq, but he is a great writer. I find myself reading all of the book reviews that he writes, even if I have no interest whatsoever in the book, just for the pleasure of his prose. He is a literate writer, and he assumes that his readers will recognize quotations and literary allusions without having to be spoon-fed. And he achieves this in an utterly contemporary voice, without retreating into anachronism. So please buy this book, to keep the author well supplied with the vodka which seems to fuel his muse. We need more of his work. Enough of the style: what of the substance? I think that I can best describe my reaction to this book by considering the different uses to which I would put it and its two companions. If a committed theist asked me why she should pay attention to the "new atheism", I would give her Dennett's book. I would hope that she would realize that the modern world provides clear evidence of the diversity of beliefs and non-beliefs, and that perhaps she would agree that this was a subject worth studying, worth considering from outside her (probably exclusive) world-view. What explains belief? Why has belief changed over the years? I wouldn't expect to change her beliefs, but perhaps she could accept that belief and non-belief were legitimate subjects of inquiry. If I met a curious man, embedded in a religious tradition but uncertain of whether (or what) he believed, or if he might actually be losing his faith, I would give him Dawkins' The God Delusion. I'd be hoping that he could appreciate the role of science (and its stepchild, technology) in both understanding and creating the world in which he lives. It's not just iPods and cruise missiles, but also polio vaccine, and clean water, and instruments like the Hubble Space Telescope that help us understand our universe, and DNA sequencing that allows us to diagnose disease but also to see our place in the web of life on this planet. And I would hope that he might come to realize, with Carl Sagan, that the realities of the universe are far more majestic and beautiful than the myths of religion. But suppose that an old friend came to me and asked, "Why are you so fired up about atheism and religion these days? I remember you 15 years ago, and back then you were posting on alt.atheism, and having fun roasting creationists on talk.origins, and reading books on the philosophy of religion. But you didn't talk - and write - about it all the time, and you certainly didn't publically define yourself by your disbelief. So what happened?" Instead of trying to explain all of my reasons, I think I'd simply give them Hitchens' new book and say, "Read this. He puts it better than I ever could. I merely experience the occasional (but increasingly frequent) feelings of frustration, impatience, outrage, and even anger. Hitchens is an unequalled exponent of the art of the rant: he says what I feel, with passion, intensity and wit." This is not a book that seeks to convert. Its purpose is, first and foremost, to explain. To explain why atheists are no longer willing to sit meekly on our hands when the President of the United States says that I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens", or when the Archbishop of Canterbury excuses the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, or when Catholic cardinals and archbishops preach that condoms transmit AIDS. Yes, Hitchens also explains why he is an atheist, and the things that he finds mad, bad, or ridiculous about religion. Individual believers will naturally snort, and say that he's not talking about their belief, but that's not the point. He's not seeking to win a debate, or persuade the uncertain: he's laying out facts about the world and his opinions of those facts. And I agree with most of what he says. Perhaps because he is a student of history, and a former Marxist Trotskyite, Hitchens pays particular attention to what he calls An Objection Anticipated: The Last-Ditch "Case" Against Secularism. He's talking (p.230) about the charge that "secular totalitarianism has actually provided us with the summa of human evil." Hitchens' response is lengthy and detailed, and rejects the simplistic lumping-together of the various dictators of the 20th century. He describes how fascism and National Socialism co-opted religious institutions, which responded with unseemly enthusiasm. On the other hand, Communism in Russia and China had more in common with the anticlericalism of the French Revolution. Obviously Communists wished to eliminate any competing source of ideology or loyalty; beyond this, their secularism was less an expression of ontological atheism than of hatred towards the religious institutions which had supported the previous autocracies or imperialists. In fact, Communists were not trying to negate religion, but to replace it, complete with saints, heretics, mummies and icons. It's a complex topic that could fill an entire book, and Hitchens handles it very well. As you may have gathered by now, I really like this book. I really think that it's my favourite of the three, mostly because I learned more from it than the other two, and because it caught my mood so well. Of course there are many things to learn from Dennett and Dawkins, but I've been steeped in their works for the last twenty years, and I think I understand the world from their perspective. With his literary and historical bent, Hitchens provided an intriguingly different point of view. And, as I think I mentioned, the writing is simply superb.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐ Again, thank God I'm an atheist!
*by K***T on August 16, 2007*

This is the second major book of atheist philosophy to hit the market in recent months (the other, of course, being The God Delusion ). Like Dawkins' book, it asserts the notion that there is no god of any sort. It makes the points with intelligent, well-reasoned statements and seldom lapses into polemic and stridency. However, the book is not as easy of a read. It is surprisingly slow going. I usually find myself reading a book, glancing up after a bit and being surprised to find that I'm much farther into it than I expected. The opposite happens here. This is partly because of Hitchens' rather dense prose and his desire to not use one or two syllable words when there's perfectly good five and six syllable ones laying around unclaimed. The other part of why it's a long read is because it actually made me stop and think a bit more than "The God Delusion". For instance, the book seems to have almost single-handly changed my views on circumscion (which I prefer on an asthetic level, but have come to realize that my asthetics don't matter when it comes to the right of a newborn child to keep their foreskin intact. I still stand by the notion that if there are measurable medical benefits, and I understand there are, then it should continue to be allowed. Absent that, it should be banned until the person in question is an adult). It's also pointlessly worth noting that, unlike "The God Delusion", this book is not shinny and can not be used to signal passing aircraft. Ultimately this is a very good book that I highly recommend. It didn't hold my interest as much as "The God Delusion" did, but for all that it is still worth buying, reading, and giving to your religious friends.

## Frequently Bought Together

- God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
- The God Delusion
- The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever

---

## Why Shop on Desertcart?

- 🛒 **Trusted by 1.3+ Million Shoppers** — Serving international shoppers since 2016
- 🌍 **Shop Globally** — Access 737+ million products across 21 categories
- 💰 **No Hidden Fees** — All customs, duties, and taxes included in the price
- 🔄 **15-Day Free Returns** — Hassle-free returns (30 days for PRO members)
- 🔒 **Secure Payments** — Trusted payment options with buyer protection
- ⭐ **TrustPilot Rated 4.5/5** — Based on 8,000+ happy customer reviews

**Shop now:** [https://www.desertcart.hk/products/1692857-god-is-not-great-how-religion-poisons-everything](https://www.desertcart.hk/products/1692857-god-is-not-great-how-religion-poisons-everything)

---

*Product available on Desertcart Hong Kong*
*Store origin: HK*
*Last updated: 2026-03-04*