The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[Ace]

Has anyone read it yet? Thinking of grabbing a copy - sounds like it will be a kick in the nuts for most Creationists, but it has had both very negative and very positive feedback. What do you think about the whole thing?

Here is a bit of a review on the book: The Age Review

Sounds like it is pretty full on with a lot of over the top sort of things, but I wouldnt mind having a gander anyway and will try not to be lured in too much...

[MORG]

I think it's a terrific book but then again I'm an unashamed Dawkins supporter.

Gets a little boring around the middle somewhere when he wades into the Bible sprouting far too many old names and places and blah blah blah, but over all the book is excellent, inspiring and at times hilarious.

I do prefer the Selfish Gene though. I think reading either The Selfish Gene or Climbing Mount Improbable first would make the most out of reading the The God Delusion, unless you're already very comfortable with the logic of Darwinism in which case go right ahead. It's just that often he'll allude to his own particular slant on Darwinism like everyone knows what he's talking about. I do know what he's talking about but I wonder whether some of it might seem a little opaque for the first-time Dawkins reader. Thoughts from anyone?

I find his writing intelligent, witty (yes, at times arrogant) and affirming. But with me he's preaching to the converted, to use a poorly chosen cliche.

Read it! It's great!

[narayan]

To be honest I really didn't enjoy this book that much. I thought he went on for way to long about how bad the major religion's are and all the wars and problems in the world they've caused. I would have enjoyed it more if he explained his own philosophy's and thoughts on atheism.

Btw did anyone see Richard Dawkins on SouthPark a few weeks back? Pretty damn hillarious he converted Mrs Garrison to Atheism and had lots of disturbing sex scenes

[PD.]

....

Edited June 2, 2007 by Passive Daemon

[Anodyne]

Anyone see the show - presumably made to match the book - shown last week on SBS/ABC(?) where Dawkins was discussing this topic? I thought he used unnecessarily rude & sensationalist language to argue his points (he was basically telling religious parents that they were abusing their children, c'mon), which totally ruined it for me & made it very unlikely he'd convince anyone who didnt agree with him already - preaching to the converted indeed.

[Pala]

A couple of years back I read "The Selfish Gene" which I thought was quite good. Then, wanting to check out what else he was into, I read his "Unweaving the Rainbow". The purpose of Unweaving was to show how interesting things are (eg. the colours of the rainbow) when seen from a scientific understanding (i.e. refraction of different wavelenghts etc.). Unfortunately, it seemed that Dawkins spent more time (continuing the example) complaining about poets whose art (according to Dawkins) consist make rainbows seem magical.

I'm not sure if he's just trying to find a voice, or if it's some sort of (personal) issue he's trying to deal with.

[woof woof woof]

whatever within us that us to love unconditionally and have understanding is God to me!

i mean something lined up the genes to make us able to think in such a way! that is god to me....

for me it is not possible to be deluded about God or the concept of God. there are plenty more abstract ways to come to the same conclusions in life again, and again and again.

And also IF THE GOD CONCEPT WORKS FOR YOU in life, helping with loving unconditionally and understanding......... then why the hell do away with that concept!?!!!!!!? Why even waste time with debating it.

have not read any of the books mentioned herefore. have read some of the revieuws about R Dawkins..... ha ha,..... maybe he himself is deluded

I actually find mr dawkins funny > quoting wiki

Dawkins begins Chapter 2 by describing Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully

you know that all of that is all true,.... if you are one Yawehs bad side.... hah ah ah joke

i think that these are the perceptions of a DUALISTIC MIND,.... i mean if we are going to ying yang think..... then there must SURELY be another side of the Man upstairs!

clearly Having a clear perception of life is what is most important here. Therefore having respect for other religions even if they do not fully allign with your own perceptions & practises..... and yes,... evolution is still happening around us every day...... it is to each his own to select and activate the genes that will help us maintain a happy/healthy life, so that thousands of years from now, it will be a greather part of our awareness.

Last note; why i think that God / nature is a personal God - simply because you, me and everyone else has a personality - we have all been shaped by natural selection.... nature created personality!

last not # 2 ha ha ah - rambling - why i think an abstract way of seeing god is also good = to have a sharper intuitive way to understand nature.

my 3 cents!

[ThunderIdeal]

woof, i had the knee-jerk reaction of being offended by dawkins book when i read the blurb, but i don't think it's god that he has a problem with. it's more to do with what man does in the name of god. i am not personally a fan of religion, it has proven itself to be quite an evil concept much of the time, so without reading the book i think i agree with him. there is nothing noble about dogma, dogma is ignorance to possibilities, and i don't even see how words can bring about dogma when words have so many interpretations. how can people take the bible for the direct and literal word of god when there is probably more than 1000 versions of the bible going around?

i think he has made a valuable contribution. it isn't unique but it's strong. every person can have a relationship with god and no organisation should set about monopolising that.

religion is often no different to blasphemy. without reading the book i suspect richard has not struck a blow against god, but FOR god.