The God Delusion - by Richard Dawkins

[The Baron]

Has anyone else read this?

I'm a quarter of the way through and intrigued.

[Claw75]

not yet - picked it up the other day and it's next on my list.  I'll report back for discussion in a week or so!

[AndrewT]

I've nearly finished it.

As you may guess, he's preaching to the choir with me but he is very good at stating things in a clear manner.

[The Baron]

I've nearly finished it.

As you may guess, he's preaching to the choir with me but he is very good at stating things in a clear manner.

I can only agree. His arguments are to me, most importantly, in a very logical sequence for such a broad discussion. And I'm not even one of the choir.

He does seem particularly zealous though at points though. That is my only complaint.

[Acidmouse]

Read it and enjoyed.

[AndrewT]

He does seem particularly zealous though at points though. That is my only complaint.

That's actually the major (and, I think, welcome) change in, for want of a better term, 'atheist thinking' recently.

Previously there was a very passive approach taken by atheists. They didn't want to try and convince others to their way of thinking (essentially evangelising about atheism) because that seemed to be too 'religious'. They were content to simply not be religious (sometimes quite smugly, looking down upon the religious). There was also an acceptence that they were 'winning' as society become more enlightened and secular, so nothing more was required.

Dawkins and others (Christopher Hitchins and Sam Harris, among others) have realised that taking this passive approach is not good enough in these dangerous times. The religious nutcases are driving world events these days - they've got to be stopped otherwise they'll lead to the deaths of many, many more people. And the best way to do that is convince the general population of the folly of their beliefs. Hence all the atheist literature of late.

[The Baron]

Good post.

I just think the style will turn away as many readers as it intrigues. The writing is almost "religious" in it's style.

His points are more than good enough (of what I've read so far) to not need the zealousness.

I understand why he's done it - I'm just not sure it's the best route.

[AdamM]

worth a read for a fristrated atheist then?

[richmagpies]

Read this a while ago and just confirmed everything i 'believe'. He has a great way of cutting through all the crap that is spouted. Have a look at some of the videos of his lectures on his website - very good.

[The Baron]

worth a read for a fristrated atheist then?

Definately.

[boldie]

read it and thought it was alright..he is preaching to the choir with me aswell but just didn't like his writing style

[AndrewT]

Good post.

I just think the style will turn away as many readers as it intrigues. The writing is almost "religious" in it's style.

His points are more than good enough (of what I've read so far) to not need the zealousness.

I understand why he's done it - I'm just not sure it's the best route.

To me, not only is religious belief bollocks, but it is so blindingly obviously bollocks that I can't imagine how anyone could not think about it for more than, ooh, three seconds without realising that.

And yet, religion is so widespread in society that it must be being sold to people very well, because they're buying it. Therefore, these same techniques should work well for atheism.

Some have noticed that the latest wave of atheist literature could be labelled a 'crusade' to 'convert' people away from religion, with all the associated meanings those terms have. Maybe a religious approach is the best way to get through to religious people?

[AndrewT]

worth a read for a fristrated atheist then?

Someone who is already an atheist won't get as much out of it, as it's a book which isn't really for us. 'The End of Faith' by Sam Harris is better for an atheist because it examines how organised religion encourages terrorism in a way I haven't seen before, which obviously has great relevance in this day and age.

[boldie]

Good post.

I just think the style will turn away as many readers as it intrigues. The writing is almost "religious" in it's style.

His points are more than good enough (of what I've read so far) to not need the zealousness.

I understand why he's done it - I'm just not sure it's the best route.

To me, not only is religious belief bollocks, but it is so blindingly obviously bollocks that I can't imagine how anyone could not think about it for more than, ooh, three seconds without realising that.

And yet, religion is so widespread in society that it must be being sold to people very well, because they're buying it. Therefore, these same techniques should work well for atheism.

Some have noticed that the latest wave of atheist literature could be labelled a 'crusade' to 'convert' people away from religion, with all the associated meanings those terms have. Maybe a religious approach is the best way to get through to religious people?

I have no problem with religious people...Yes I disagree with them but I have no problem with it in principle. The problem I have is with the "extreme" believers..who think they are the only ones that are right and that they should lay down the law for everyone else. Also teaching creationism in schools as an alternative to evolution is VERY dangerous and simply not on.

The religious right in America is now organising themselves in a way that can only be described as extremely unhealthy. they have set up universities that ONLY teach Creationism and teach them how they can succeed in business/law and politics and so change the entire political and social landscape of the US (and thereby the world) something has to be done to counteract this movement.

what Atheists have to understand though is that with these people you can not have a "conversion" chat. they aresimply not willing to listen..anyone who actually believes the world is only 6000 years old can not be reasoned with so there's no point in wasting your energy trying. what does need to be tried though is preventing other people from joining that group.

[The Baron]

Good post.

I just think the style will turn away as many readers as it intrigues. The writing is almost "religious" in it's style.

His points are more than good enough (of what I've read so far) to not need the zealousness.

I understand why he's done it - I'm just not sure it's the best route.

To me, not only is religious belief bollocks, but it is so blindingly obviously bollocks that I can't imagine how anyone could not think about it for more than, ooh, three seconds without realising that.

And yet, religion is so widespread in society that it must be being sold to people very well, because they're buying it. Therefore, these same techniques should work well for atheism.

Some have noticed that the latest wave of atheist literature could be labelled a 'crusade' to 'convert' people away from religion, with all the associated meanings those terms have. Maybe a religious approach is the best way to get through to religious people?

You're probably right. It's most likely the exact reason he's written it in that style.

I guess for me personally it's juat a taste thing. I can't stand being forced to think something. At times it feels a bit like that.

His writing about the US is both amazing and worrying though.