* * * *
Hitchens's critique of religion has a great deal in common with that of Richard Dawkins, and the book follows a similar path of raising and then dismantling successive traditional defences of religion. Hitchens states in the beginning that he differs from Dawkins in that he mainly just wants to be left alone, rather than actively confront religion and attempt to beat it back. But given how effectively he argues against religion later, given the book's subtitle, isn't active engagement a stronger moral stance to take?
Finding little to differentiate between these two books, I still give Hitchens the edge for writing a book that was simply just a little bit more enjoyable. He also narrates the audio version himself, and though not as talented a speaker as Dawkins and his wife, is quite competent.