I was expecting a bit more real world examples of the ills caused by religion, however the book focused more on philosophical arguments (which is also good) and just mentioned real world examples in passing. It did do a good job of putting the arguments in easy to understand forms and ended with a much more uplifting description of humanism and its benefits ( )

Religion and It's Flaws
Exposing the so called contradictions (flaws) of religion, A. C. Grayling argues for the superiority of humanism, whose central notions, he believes, can establish an ethics system based in human will, potentiality and contingencies. An ethics system based on religion's notions is inferior, because it ignores human potentialities and produces violence. The book is well written. The author expresses his ideas in a simple and understandable language. The matter is fascinating and controversial. One wonders if the author succeeded in making his case. ( )

Grayling offers a much more respectful, thoughtful, and compelling approach to the argument than "New Atheists" such as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens who rely too much upon condescension and ridicule. Like those other authors Grayling is most successful in demonstrating the many failings of organized religion. I still don't see how it makes sense to use logic and reason to argue against something as illogical and unreasonable as religious faith. It's true that much evil has been done in the name of religion but I can't help but think that the greatest humanitarians in history have been motivated by religious faith. This is not a subject Grayling ever brings up and I'm curious to know what he'd say about this. ( )

Grayling has a talent for writing clearly about complicated topics. Many of his ideas have been written about in other places, but he makes them so much more readable. Very interesting, well written, common sense. An excellent and inspiring read. I've no hesitation in giving this one five stars! ( )

Given the author's background, it isn't surprising that this is well argued.
But it is just a little mean spirited. The fundamental view propounded is that we should be compassionate and understanding towards one another, accepting of other views, and that the origin of this ethic lies in rational thought about humanity and society. But in this book the compassion seems lacking towards those who hold religious beliefs. Where is the discussion of the role of religion in such great causes as anti-slavery?
This book is a work of philosophy, but it makes historical assertions, and it is all a bit too black and white historically. MacCulloch's History of Christianity shows more balance, even if it is likely to turn many readers away from religion. So much blood over such small differences.
Onfray is still my favourite book on atheism. A slight change of tone, rather more compassion towards those the author sees as deluded, and I'd have loved this book. ( )