A crisply written, passionate expose of the three major monotheistic religions that manages to be engaging, revealing and well researched using the most impeccable of sources - the Koran, the Bible and Talmud and Torah.
The major thesis? These religions are created by men to empower some men and disempower most, especially women and children, and to deny the now of life as it is lived, for a mythical life in the hereafter.
To think that Mein Kampf was never placed on the Catholic Church's index of banned books whilst those of Sartre, De Beauvoir et al were, is enough to enrage the most reasonable of men.
We are reminded too of the Original Sin - to eat of the tree of knowledge. Oh yeah.
Minor thesis? The ignorant and unreasonable will win if we don't continue to search, read, learn, doubt, and struggle to understand.

To appreciate or reject Onfray's book it's important to understand what 'Atheist Manifesto' is about. Is it really a declaration of atheism made by a modern philosopher? Or maybe, as the subtitle and bulk of the book's contents would suggest, an indictment of monotheism? Or is it a proposal of a new, strictly secular order that would replace the present one, based on too Christian values?

I'm afraid that in fact it's neither, as a result misleading and disappointing the reader. The book fails as a manifesto for atheists, doesn't deliver a new ground-breaking moral system although it calls for it, and its assault on monotheism, although interesting and valid, misses a larger point.

What seems to concern Onfray most is the threat of growing fundamentalism, both among Muslims and Christians. To fight it he does call for adoption of a 'postchristian' secular order but fails to propose any details except one, namely that religions (or more precisely - believers) shouldn't enjoy equal position to other moral systems or worldviews (atheists). This is simply not satisfactory. Whether it maybe sensible to call for rejection of many values based on religion, he neither specifies which ones nor offers any alternatives. Secondly, dechristanization has been attempted twice, with rather disastrous results. The French Revolution ended in bloodbath, Communism in shambles. A call for inequality of people seems extremely dangerous in general and even more so in such hindsight.

He supports his opinion only indirectly by presenting an impressive, if not totally convincing body of contradictions present in monotheistic religions and evils perpetrated in the name of God. Clearly, self-contradictory and morally objectionable religions cannot be a base of modern ethics. Or can they?

In the second, largest part of his book thus Onfray gives one example after another how God/Allah is at once merciful and vengeful, or how Christian rulers found justification for conquest and genocide in the meek and mild Jesus.

Unintentionally, from his picking at their wrongdoings and faults, emerges a picture of how religions supply a framework more universal and more permanent than nationality or language. They're a means adopted first, to give people a cultural identity and unity; second, to gain and maintain control over minds and nations. Society goes for tools that best serve its survival and monotheism clearly works! It's certainly warped beyond recognition and ossified yet somehow it still works.

In his attempts to deconstruct all three religions, Christianity in particular, and 'demonstrate how they are alike' he somehow doesn't try to compare them to other religions or other ideological systems. Onfray is right to point out religion's deadly sins but they're neither unique nor worse than those committed by other ideologies fighting for their own prosperity, be it Shinto, absolutism, communism or democracy.

Also, he gets so entangled in his own rhetoric that he starts treating religious writings as divine revelations, forgetting about their prosaic origins. Harsh morals can at least partly be justified by even harsher life in the unforgiving desert. Islam's, Judaism's and Christianity's misogyny can be better explained by comparative anthropology than by deconstructing messages from a god that doesn't exist.

Nero's persecution of Christians, Constantine's adoption of Christianity for his empire, no matter how much dressed in the 'name of God' usually have very earthly interests at heart and should be a subject of political history rather than study of religions. It's very difficult to distill a truly religious motive that is not an excuse for other, down-to-earth goals and Onfray doesn't succeed at this task either.

On top of this he slaps a chapter on atheology. Athelogy is an interesting and important step from a simple disbelief in gods toward a whole system of philosophical and moral thought based on atheism. Typically for his writing style, however, Onfray prefers to sell it as 'a countercurrent to theology, a channel to carry us past discourse on God and flow upstream to the source, where we may examine the mechanisms of theology up close' whatever this may mean. The rest of the chapter, unfortunately, is filled with similar twaddle.

There's not a word the about the increasing body of knowledge - science, history, comparative anthropology etc. that keeps pulling the rug from under God's feet. Even though the wealth of historical facts is easily the book's strongest point, history of atheism for Onfray seems to start with a 17th century French priest, Jean Meslier and continue mainly with other French philosophers. All previous freethinkers, ancient Greeks and their successors are either dismissed as deists, pantheists, or agnostics. Where is a mention of Diagoras who openly declared that there was no God at all? Where is Theodorus aptly nicknamed 'the Atheist'? Atheist schools of thought in ancient India are not mentioned at all. This bias towards all things French, by the way, is present throughout the book throwing Onfray's believability as an objective philosopher into doubt.

So, apart from highly controversial claims about monotheistic religions, accusing them of 'death instinct', fascism, and hatred, the book is also back to front. The chapter on atheology goes first, his bulky critique of monotheism second, and his proposal last, in about two pages, since the rest of the chapter 'Toward a post-Christian Secular Order' for incomprehensible reasons concentrates mainly on Islam. Perhaps it makes sense to Onfray, but doesn't help confused readers.

It would be naive to expect any warm word toward religion from a book of such title, yet this is where Onfray ultimately loses his credibility despite all his hard work. We simply can't trust a man whose agenda doesn't allow him to see any good in religion. He's most probably right when he repeats after Descartes that we remain citizens of Christland to the degree that even atheists largely uphold the Judeo-Christian worldview, but it's still impossible to imagine our civilization without religion or reject it as thoroughly and painlessly as the author would like to, if only he had something to replace it with.

For all these reasons I can't recommend this book with a clear conscience. It contains many valuable insights into religion but needs a major rewrite before can be presented to the readers again.

Onfray's book bears a title "Atheist Manifesto". Although the original French title is different, it's fair to expect from it a declaration of atheism, its cause, reasons, maybe history. The first part of the book - Atheology - however, is filled with mostly unimportant twaddle and hardly touches on these subjects.

There's not a word the about the increasing body of knowledge - science, history, comparative anthropology etc. that keeps pulling the rug from under God's feet. Even though the wealth of historical facts is easily the book's strongest point, history of atheism for Onfray seems to start with a 17th century French priest, Jean Meslier and continue mainly with other French philosophers. All previous freethinkers, ancient Greeks and their successors are either dismissed as deists, pantheists, or agnostics. Where is a mention of Diagoras who openly declared that there was no God at all? Where is Theodorus aptly nicknamed 'the Atheist'? Atheist schools of thought in ancient India are not mentioned at all. This bias towards all things French, by the way, is present throughout the book throwing Onfray's believability as an objective philosopher into doubt.

Only the concept of atheology itself, 'a countercurrent to theology, a channel to carry us past discourse on God and flow upstream to the source, where we may examine the mechanisms of theology up close', or in more accessible terms - developing disbelief into a moral and philosophical system, is of interest, even if eventually disappoints. Onfray seems to promise us a new, postmodern atheism that 'would place morality and politics on a new base, one that is not nihilist but post-Christian'. Unfortunately, and this is perhaps his biggest failure, he doesn't deliver this either. Sixteen out of twenty pages of the part titled Toward a Post-Christian Secular Order are about... fascist Islam. The other four contain just one proposal - adoption of superiority of non-believers over believers. That's all! Onfray's great de-Christianized moral system is that a believing Jew, Christian or Muslim should not be equal to an atheist!

What better indicates the book's contents is its subtitle - The case against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. For it is in fact a constant, immoderate and furious attack on the monotheistic religions. In the second, largest part of his book Onfray attempts to deconstruct all three religions, Christianity in particular, and 'demonstrate how they are alike'. Somehow he doesn't try to demonstrate how they are similar to other religions like buddhism or shinto for example, or for that matter how they differ from them. Neither does he try to look for or explain the origins of monotheism in circumstances and interactions that formed and conditioned the tribes and peoples of the Middle East deserts, their morals, and then their beliefs as if he didn't realize that any idea or a system will be warped beyond recognition if given time and chance to grow.

Although he keeps picking at their easily forgettable wrongdoings and faults, his analysis of religions lacks synthesis that would put it all together in a convincing manner. Even worse he somehow fails to see institutionalized religions for what they really are and what is becoming more and more obvious as the book progresses, namely not a divine guidance but a tool adapted first, to aid and preserve a people's cultural identity; second, to take over, maintain and expand control over minds and nations. Society adopts tools that best serve its survival and monotheism clearly works!

Harsh morals can at least partly be justified by even harsher life in the unforgiving desert. Islam's, Judaism's and Christianity's misogyny can be better explained by comparative anthropology than by deconstructing messages from a god that doesn't exist. Nero's persecution of Christians, Constantine's adoption of Christianity for his empire, genocides and conquests, no matter how much dressed in the 'name of God' usually have very earthly goals and interests at heart and should be a subject of political history rather than study of religions. In this respect religion is hardly different from other ideologies fighting for their own prosperity, whether it's royal absolutism, communism or democracy. There is probably not one crime against humanity mentioned by Onfray in the context of monotheism that other systems of rule and ideologies are not guilty of. Nevertheless this is never debated either.

It's very difficult to distill a truly and exclusively religious motive that is not mixed with other, down-to-earth goals and Onfray doesn't succeed at this task either, making it his second biggest failure.
Additionally he makes a number of highly controversial claims about monotheistic religions, accusing them of 'death instinct', hatred as their common base, Paul's neuroses as the source of Christian morals, or sympathy between Hitler and the Vatican. His research is occasionally a cause for doubt too. Claim that the God's recipe for bread in Ezekiel 4:9 includes human excrement stems rather from a poor translation than from the actual text. His revelations about the real reasons behind Galileo's trial and imprisonment remain an unproven and not very likely theory.

It would be silly to expect any warm word toward religion from a book of such title, yet this is where Onfray ultimately loses his credibility despite all his hard work. We simply can't trust a man whose agenda doesn't allow him to see any good in religion. He most probably right when he repeats after Descartes that we remain citizens of Christland to the degree that even atheists largely uphold the Judeo-Christian worldview, but it's still impossible to imagine our civilization without religion or reject it as thoroughly and painlessly as the author would like to suggest if only he had something to replace it with.
To sum up, the book fails as a manifesto for atheists, doesn't propose any new ground-breaking moral system although it calls for it, and its lame assault on monotheism largely misses the point.

As an atheist, I was interested and learned a lot supporting my long distaste for the three monotheistic religions. I think Onfray missed something by not addressing the question of the "God" gene, the thought that humans have evolved to need and accept the idea of gods.

The last part of the book, which I was looking forward to as guidance for going about helping the world "get over religion" left me flat. It seems to me that human evolution has dictated ways we interact that we're not going to be able to shake, no matter what. There's not enough biology in Onfray's psychology or philosophy. The next step should be to clearly define what we are - evolved animals, not God's creations, and use our intelligence to pin down sensible societal mores and interactions based on the realities.

Has some good stuff about Pauls hysteria and how the cult of jesus got started and how it became an official religion.THE GOD DELUSION was much better.I may go back and re read some parts of the atheist manifesto but over all Its only worth one read.

A manifesto, unlike a treatise, is allowed to proclaim rather than argue. This may be why the English publishers of Onfrey's Traite d'atheologie changed the title for this translation. The book is an admirable manifesto--fiery, angry, apocalyptic--but it's hardly a treatise that presents arguments in defense of its claims. Readers who are used to the analytic defenses of atheism characteristic of the Anglo-American philosophical tradition may find themselves perplexed by Onfray's more aphoristic, impressionistic approach.

After a few preliminary remarks on the need to take the Enlightenment ideals of reason seriously, Onfrey proceeds in his Manifesto to focus almost exclusively on dissecting the world's three monotheisms: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. His remarks will be familiar to readers who know their Nietzche, Feuerbach, and Freud. What may be surprising are the rather bizarre non sequitors with which Onfray sprinkles his narrative: for example, Hitler was a Catholic and justified racial genocide by appealing to Jesus's cleansing of the Temple (pp. 166-67); monotheistic religions require mutilation of the genitalia because monotheistic deities hate sexuality (pp. 107-109); monotheisms are aggressively anti-intellectual (pp. 51-55). Such claims fly in the face of empirical evidence: Hitler's disdainful repudiation of Christianity, the fact that medical circumcision does nothing to lessen sexual pleasure, and Islamic medieval astronomy, medicine, and mathematics.

The tone of anger escalates as the book proceeds. Onfray seems convinced that the world is headed toward a final showdown between religion and secularism, and he ends on an ominously apocalyptic note. In his final condemnation of monotheistic "discourse of neurosis, hysteria, and mysticism," he insists that "we can no more tolerate neutrality and benevolence toward every conceivable form of discourse, including that of magical thinking, than we can lump together executioner and victim...Must we remain neutral? Can we afford to? I do not think so" (p. 219).

There are excellent recent defenses of atheism available from both the Continental tradition (Andre Comte-Sponville's The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality)and the analytic one (Michael Martin's The Cambridge Companion to Atheism). Readers interested in exploring atheism in a rigorous way might want to consult them instead of Onfray. There is much heat in his Manifesto, but relatively little light.

A whirlwind read because of its passionate oratorial style reminiscent of evangelical speakers. His attacks are as devastating as pulpit attacks on satan. There is nothing of merit or redeeming social value in any of the religions he attacks. Equally worthy of his passion is secular or christian atheism because it does not give reason its proper glorification. According to him, such a compromising attitude only leads to tolerance of superstition and irrationality and complete relativism, the very same sin that the religious seem to fear also. In his passion he fails to differentiate between intolerance that demands punishment and/or withholding privileges and the intolerance of rational people of good will who demand reasons over feelings. He comes across as the very type of person he preaches against, a theocrat with his view of reason as the arbiter of truth. Just because of his extreme position it is a fascinating read. Sam Harris is much more balanced presenting very much the same position.

I had for a long time believed that god's & religions were an invention of man. This publication was a terrific aid in discovering what I needed to decide that I was a humanist, a polite label for an atheist. You too will enjoy this book if you are looking for proof of what cannot be found in any bible.

This book was so depressing that it took a few chapters to get past that 'dark' feeling. How anyone could read about religion's history and not feel depressed is beyond me.
But the information was so hard-hitting that it opens your eyes (unless religion has them locked shut) to what has been going on in the past 2 millenia. It's easy to see why this kind of information is suppressed in our religion-dominated culture.
A book like this would have never even made it into print until now, and even now only in non-theocratic countries. Also the author would never have been allowed to survive (and wouldn't today if he tried this in a Muslim country). I'm sure the 'fatwa' has already been issued by our god-loving, forgiving and tolerant Muslim brothers (and the Christians aren't any happier - maybe they'll issue a "joint" fatwa).

While I am and atheist and interested in writings regarding atheism, I did not find this book very interesting. Lots of rambling in language that makes basic ideas sound overly pompous. Despite the esoteric language and references, I did not find much that I had not discovered before.

Anyone starting to read on the topics and ideas of atheism would do better with Bertrand Russell. Russell writes clearly, rather than verbosely and possesses considerable wit. "Why I Am Not A Christian"is a good start and fine alternative to Onfray.

A little bit hard read but it is a good book especially where it attacks and criticizes the current Iranian regime and shows us what religious fanaticism can do. A good read!

THE critique of modern religion with a French accent. Obviously a translation, not all the metaphors are easily understood, and a dictionary at hand is recommended for full understanding--I think it will take two re-reads to really understand the intent of the author, but well worth the effort! And, well worth the re-read!

Admittedly, this book (paperback) was purchased because the title and bookcover (features an angel lying down on what looks like tarmac the front, Onfray in black on the back, standing in what looks like a gallery, with a vacuum cleaner pipe at his feet) appeared "affected" and I thought "this should be good" wryly. Having just read Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" and found it dry, even if well-argued, one-eyed and uninspiring, this seemed to offer a completely different approach and take on the debate. A friend mentioned that perhaps Dawkins means to approach the debate stridently, as a clear strike for the opposing view. No quarter is given by Dawkins to religious belief, even to the men of cloth, such as Spong, whose intellect yet he seems to esteem. Onfray seems less enthused by that approach to the discussion it seems, and isn't inclined to vitriol.

This is an eccentric and easier read than Dawkins' text. An entirely different take on the debate on the place and impact of religion in society. In this case monotheistic religions, their history and ongoing impact. Onfray ambles, it is an intriguing amble if you can stay the distance, he takes the materialists' line, is somewhat concentrated on the monotheistic religious documentary evidence being compositions over time by various and sundry, that they are patchy documents, potentially fraudulently copied and transcribed, out of date, and contradictory in the life principles promulgated. Many of the approaches and decisions in life are, so the fact these texts are too doesn't strike as particularly revealing, or that they are held up as doctrine, and truth, well, is contradictory, he makes the case for this clear. He reaches into a discussion on common humanity (that is revealed in theism), but doesn't push it far enough. There are some insights, but, this needs articulating more coherently yet. By the end of the book some sharper points popped out, such as:

"This relativism is crushing. In its name and in the name of secularism, all discourse carries equal weight: error and truth, the false and the true, the capricious and the serious, Myth and fable, weigh as much as reason. Magic counts for as much as science. Dream for as much as reality. But all discourse does not carry the same weight: the discourse of neurosis, hysteria, and mysticism proceeds from another world than that of the positivist. We can no more tolerate neutrality and benevolence toward every conceivable form of discourse, including that of magical thinking, than we can lump together executioner and victim, good and evil."

Onfray can be terse in his criticisms of these religions, and this is one morsel. The edition read is translated into English from French, but irrespective of language, this engaging tone pervades and adds to the reading experience. To wit:

"Eve's descendents must hold their husbands in awe and refrain from teaching or from trying to control the supposedly stronger sex. Temptresses, seductresses, they may of course hope for salvation, but only in, through, and for motherhood."

The analysis of Paul (of Tarsus) is interesting:

"This comes close to a straightforward acknowledgement of the logic of compensation that held captive the hysteric who collapsed on the road to Damascus. From the starting point of his own dilapidated physique, Paul militated for a world that resembled him."

The underlying psychology and human desire for and value placed in belief needs more insight and debate, bring on more philosophers. This was a good read, Onfray has "style" and his substance touches on some kernels of thought that need wider discussion, he finishes with:

"I persist in preferring philosophers to rabbis, priests, imams, ayatollahs, and mullahs. Rather than trust their theological hocus-pocus, I prefer to draw on alternatives to the dominant philosophical historiography: the laughers, materialists, radicals, cynics, hedonists, atheists, sensualists, voluptaries."

One ponders that his dinner parties would be sumptuous and very entertaining!

In the first place let me admit that I'm a Christian but I do realise that historically Christianity has a lot to answer for. (Coming from an Irish background, how could I not???)
But I think that M Onfray's anti-religious indignation has led him too far when he cast doubts on the historical existence of Jesus. He (quite correctly) points to the fact there is very little contemporary written evidence about Jesus outside the gospels - passing references in Tacitus, Suetonius. etc. But of course he does not accept the gospels, the letters of St Paul and the other apostles, the non-canonical gospels etc. Why? Because they were all written by Christians who are, to his way of thinking, naturally unreliable witnesses! This is like writing a book about Julius Caesar but refusing to accept the testimony of anyone who actually knew him!!!!
I can certainly understand how someone might come to think that religion is a bad thing generally. I do not agree, but I can see that someone might think it!
But M. Onfray, as I have said, goes too far in his polemic - especially by assuming 'a priori' that all Christians (and anyone who has a religion)are unreliable witnesses. To discount everything that Christians say because they are Christians is to assume what you are supposedly trying to prove. On that point, I would recommend Cardinal Newman's "Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England" as a stinging rebuke to the anti-Catholic prejudices of his times, with a much wider relevance for anti-religious prejudice generally.
M. Onfray's book is not really a work of impartial scholarship - and to be fair to him, he doesn't really pretend that it is. He clearly sets out to be shocking in places. It is quite a bitter work of polemic.

During the past two centuries we have witnessed a continuous struggle between the advancement of Scientific, secular view of our existence and the old superstitious fables. Since various forms of religious hierarchical organizations were controlled by the financially pewerful sections of society, it has been very difficult for the reason and scientific knowledge to penetrate the bariers of the "establishment".
Fortunately, due to the tremendous advances in the realm of communication technology, this has been finally accomplished.
So, keep up with the good work of publishing the workd of reason, empirical knowledge and enlightened way of working towards saving our beautiful planet - Earth. The liberation of humankind from the horrors of superstition is long overdue. Dan Kustudich > dankusti@eastlink.ca <

An age of rational inquiry, the Enlightenment, constellated with the genius of Voltaire, Descartes, Kant, et.al. followed by an age of "suspicion" that included Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud - these two great periods gave mankind the philosophical tools to question the authority of and ultimately see the damage perpetrated by the three dominant religions. Onfray's indictment of religion is laced with sarcasm for its banner of "brotherly love". He reviews its complicity in thirty centuries of crimes and injustices. As for the authority of their holy books, they are a hodge-podge of improbabilities, fables and - an this is critical - enough contradictions and inconsistencies to justify virtually any act of violence against the non-believer.

Onfray outlines the similarities of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. He then sketches the growth of their influence. In the end Onfay offers readers a choice. On the one hand we have reason, knowledge, freedom, pride, democracy, equality of the sexes, the joy of sex, and a passion for this world. Religion offers us dogma, faith, a distrust of science, submission, theocracy, guilt, misogyny, sexual repression, and an unhealthy focus on an afterlife. Simply stated, Onfray's manifesto starts from a flat rejection of God - and an afterlife that discounts this precious life - as a fiction in the face of what is obvious - extinction.

For all the promise of secularism - its greatest victory is the separation of church and state - we are still in a religious era. Still, Onfray sees signs of turbulence that signal a tectonic shift into a transitional post-religious age. But he chides the post-Christian secularist movement for not being "militant" enough (viz. too accomodating) in its opposition to all religious thinking. Borrowing from Nietzsche, he says, and this is where he loses me - we can choose not to make a choice - in this application, between "Israel" and the goals of an Iranian revolution. His point: all the religions are equally bad. From this side of the Atlantic (Onfray's book has been translated from his native French), it appears that cracks in the Judeo-Christian religious world are coincident with the eruption of militant, political Islamic states. Pragmatism and morality suggest siding with the better of the two.

So is Onfray unfair? Is he inclined to bully his case? Not the point. This is a polemic intended to shake the rafters. The ideas rush with energy and passion (I count one sentence with over ninety words!). Open your mind and you will read this book with rapt attention.

Maybe I'm better suited to scientifically based arguments, but I found Sam Harris' 'Letter to a Christian Nation, and Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' much more useful as atheist manifestos than this book. Onfray's writing style is overblown and declamatory--a bit like Camille Paglia's--and he didn't address how to dissolve blind faith. That said, the book is a worthwhile collection of philosophical assertions to back up the aforementioned, more evidence-based works. One intruiging inference he draws is that all three monotheistic religions emerged from the deserts of the Middle East, so it's not surprising that they are filled with dreams of a cool, green, well watered 'paradise' of pleasure and comfort after life's hard journey. He also mentions well known religious failures that bear repeating, eg that the monotheist religions punish intelligence and inquiry and promote submission and obedience.