I enjoyed Hitchen's book more to be honest but Dawkin's will give you a lot to think about.
Hitchen is definitely a more readable writer than Dawkins...
I am currently reading " The GOD delusion" by Richard Dawkins and would appreciate comments from those who have read it,pro &con.
by smiddy 64 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
cantleave
-
Chariklo
Cofty
The God Delusion is not a science book and Dawkin's doesn't pretend it is. You don't need any science background to have a valid opinion about this book.
No, of course you don't. But you'd need to be a scientist or schollar of equal stature at least in brain power to be able to disprove it, which was the suggestion to which I was responding.
Naturally, anyone can form an opinion about anything. Alternatively, they may prefer to maintain an open mind instead of forming a firm opinion, and to read a vairiety of different points of view.
Some might think that that would be a much more reasonable and even a more scientific approach.
Each to his own.
-
PSacramento
He made some very valid points and while his understanding of basic doctrine and theology isn;t that great I think His grassroots critiques were very valid.
Most believers would have a hard time answering many of them.
I think that, to get a clear picture on the validity of his arguments one must also read the replies to his arguments.
Open mind and all that.
-
Perry
There is absolutely no REAL proof that Richard Dawkins EVER EXISTED.....NONE. End of Discussion.
-
digderidoo
I have it and been reading it from time to time for the last couple of years, but not read all the way through.
In my opinion he is very condescending, uses the ad hominem attack quite a lot and doesn't do the atheist argument any favours. He does have some valid points but his approach is far from an objective one. I will continue to read it at some point, but for me it's not a page turner.
-
xchange
I enjoyed every single page because his viewpoint is not locked in the Christian / Theistic mindset. Liberating.
-
James Brown
I read it. I have read most all of Dawkins books, the benefit of working midnights in the county jail.
My opinion is its a good book.
People believe what they want to believe. People see what they want to see.
If you want to see evidence of no God, Dawkins is a good source of information.
The better question that I would like the answer to is "How do you decide what you want to see?"
-
Borges
The book is very interesting and a good read (but Hitchens is far better on the subject of religion). Much more interesting are the reactions of many beliefers. Some made good points, because Dawkins is sometimes to superficial and not blessed with a very deep knowledge of teachings and christian history. But lots of them have obvisiouly never read the book and are just bashing on the evil atheist without kowing what they are talking about. So everyone who alleges Dawkins he doesn't really know what he's talking about should ask themselfe, if he really understands atheism and why people think the way Dawkins does.
Dawkins Book "The greatest show on earth" is a lot better. It's about evolution and there he knows the ropes.
-
ziddina
I enjoyed it, but frankly he came at the subject from a totally unfamiliar angle for me...
I would have enjoyed it MUCH more if it had been a clinical dissection of the ancient Near-Eastern and Middle-Eastern beliefs that preceeded and influenced the construction of the Israelites' god[s]...
-
Perry
The better question that I would like the answer to is "How do you decide what you want to see?"
That is a very profound question.
So everyone who alleges Dawkins he doesn't really know what he's talking about should ask themselfe, if he really understands atheism and why people think the way Dawkins does.
a·the·ism (dictionary.com)
/ 'e? θi??z ?m / Show Spelled [ ey -thee-iz- uh m ] Show IPA
noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. Similar to amoral meaning = without morals; atheism means the doctrine that there is no God = without God. Since God is omnipresent, an atheist would by necessity have to be omnipresent himself to be able to declare that God doesn't exist, having looked everywhere for him and finding none. The paradox is of course is that if the atheist was omnipresent so as to be able to truthfully back up his claim, his declaration would immediately falsify his charge because being omnipresent himself.... he would in fact be God! Why would anyone want to learn anymore about an impossibility like that?