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. ( )

As an atheist manifesto, it does poorly. This is not that book. Atheism is discussed very infrequently. One passage of note, near the end gives a brief synopsis with no expansion or explanation:

"...condemnation of superstition, rejection of intolerance, abolition of censorship, resistance to tyranny, opposition to political absolutism, an end to state religion, proscription of magical thinking, extension of freedom of thought and expression, promulgation of equal rights, the notion that all law arises from contractual immanence, the wish for social happiness here and now, [and] the aspiration toward the universal reign of reason."

However, as a deconstruction of the three major monotheistic religions, it does a smashingly detailed job. ( )

Si je suis en accord avec le fond, je ne suis pas accroché par la forme.
I like this charge; we have to be lucid about religions. ( )

This is the type of book I "believe" one has to read several times to absorb the vast array of ideas expressed. Obviously "true believers" of the garden variety religions will not touch this small tome. Of course if they are looking for material to fuel their fires of righteous indignation they will have come to the right place.

Many of the ideas supporting the arguments of those who don't quite get the draw of mainstream religions appeal are of course here. Onfray goes even further in pointing a finger at the atheists, a belief system in its own right, who use the same shared religious persecution principles. There is something for everyone here in the arguments especially the devoted non-believers. ( )

The combination of clearly-argued reason and passion against what the author sees as at best the folly and at worst the wickedness of the principal monotheistic systems makes this a compelling read. It didn't "convert" me from agnosticism to atheism, but I cannot fault the justice and severity of Onfray's arguments. I only wish that my French were good enough for me not to have to rely on a translation. ( )