Michel Onfray

Em nenhum lugar desprezei aquele que acreditava nos espíritos, na alma imortal, no sopro dos deuses, na presença dos anjos, nos efeitos da prece, na eficácia do ritual, na legitimidade das encantações, no contato com os loas, nos milagres com hemoglobina, nas lágrimas da virgem, na ressurreição de um homem crucificado, nas virtudes dos cauris, nas forças xamânicas, no valor do sacrifício animal, no efeito transcendental do nitro egípcio, nas moinhas de preces. No chacal ontológico. Em nenhum lugar. Mas em toda parte constatei o quanto os homens fabulam para evitar olhar o real de frente. A criação de além-mundos não seria muito grave se seu preço não fosse tão alto: o esquecimento do real, portanto a condenável negligência do único mundo que existe. Enquanto a crença indispõe com a imanência, portanto com o eu, o ateísmo reconcilia com a terra, outro nome da vida. (M.O)… (more)

Very good. Thought provoking, practical, and personal in style. Had its French-y-er moments but over all a solid defense of hedonism as the author defines the term.
P 7 “to say again: the dominant historiography is idealist. It can be split into three periods: the Platonic period, the Christian Era, and German Idealism. In the language of official school syllabi: Plato, Descartes, and Kant. The Republic and its came of Ideas, the Discourse on Method and its thinking substance, and The Critique of Pure Reason, with its phenomena, of course, but mainly its noumena, the German reincarnation of the Platonic Idea.”
P 24 “I often put forward the following maxim of Chamfort, because it serves as a hedonist categorical imperative: “enjoy and have others enjoy, without doing harm to yourself or anyone else; that is all there is to morality.””
P 138 “These elective micro societies engage in microresistance capable of temporarily disrupting dominant microfascisms. The micrological era that we live in compels us to permanent action and perpetual engagement. “… (more)

On a second reading after a few years, I have revised my opinion. I think I can see its weaknesses now, There are some factual assertions which are simply false. Among some examples, he states that no Christian or Muslim thinkers condemn the violence and misogyny so evident in the churches and mosques. That's simply false: has he never heard of Christian pacifists? I'm persuaded by atheism/agnosticism, but this falsity really weakens the book, making its opponents into straw people. Also, a second reading shows how wedded he is to Foucault, not surprising in a French thinker. (He criticises Foucault's attitude to Iran, in the end.)
Knowledge is inextricably linked to power, says Foucault, and Christian power in the west pollutes all medical and other knowledge. Assertion, assertion. Is there no room for independent knowledge? How else did the Enlightenment emerge?
He then seeks to base a new epistemology on Bentham's utilitarianism with its very obvious weakness of oppression of the minority for the benefit of the majority, the greatest number.
Towards the end, the book is less atheist than hostile to religion. The two are not the same.
I enjoyed the first reading. Not so much the second, despite the clarity of his writing and strength of his anti-religion arguments.… (more)