The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
I do not have any religious opinions and still don’t, but after reading this book it made me realise that even so called high brow academics can be totally biased and patronising. Does anyone else think this book is a phenomenal pile of wank for the docile masses?
(CaptainCuntyBollocks the man who can with a frying pan full of lamb, Sat 17 May 2008, 17:28, 16 replies)

It's a big pile of wrong, all right.
I'm an atheist myself, but the fact is that Dawkins doesn't know enough philosophy or theology, or basic manners, so he makes an arse of himself repeatedly.
( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Sat 17 May 2008, 17:46, closed)

Thank God - i'm not alone
So many people rate this toilet paper and it's tabloid/Daily Mail writing style. The lesser of 2 evils is 'The Dawkins Delusion', the authors name escapes me but it's alot more funnier.
(CaptainCuntyBollocks the man who can with a frying pan full of lamb, Sat 17 May 2008, 17:51, closed)

I didn't mind it
though I did get annoyed with his continual self-referential tone, and it's ironically a bit like a sermon.
(Urban Hermit Exit, pursued by a bear on, Sat 17 May 2008, 18:00, closed)

Sorry, but any frayed thread
of an argument you may or may not have, (probably not, hey?) was soundly incinerated the moment you stated that you "...do not have any religious opinions".

If you have absolutely no opinion on a given subject, then anybody who Does have a stated opinion is contributing to the discourse infinately more than you are.

Even if Dawkins' book just consisted of the words "gods gay smoke weed every day" scrawled in his own excrement on a napkin, the fact that you are too lazy, frightened or stupid to take a stance means that you would have no right to criticize.
(Slyph, Sat 17 May 2008, 18:06, closed)

Surely people like Dawkins are atheism's equivalent of the kind of evangelists who stop you in the street/knock on your door and tell you you're going to burn in hell.

( idonthaveafunnynickname Drink-Aware? Sure. I'm aware I want another drink., Sat 17 May 2008, 18:13, closed)

I've read it, and have a religious opinion
I find the man quite patronising, to say the least.
( jim_bob can herd cats., Sat 17 May 2008, 18:36, closed)

Look, look!
There are some inaccuracies in the Bible!

Ergo, there is no God.

That's basically how Dawkins does it.

Over, and over, and over, and over.
( Thinker, Sat 17 May 2008, 18:50, closed)

I was talking to the original poster
Personally, I don't find him patronizing at all, merely accessible.

As for the reduction to absurdity that is stating that the book is merely the repitition of the idea that; "there are innacuracies in the Bible, ergo there isn't a God" ad nauseum, That simply isn't true.

I think the people who post that and similar sentiments are simply scratching at the one argument they can contend with.

The book presents as many arguments against the existence of God as I was familiar with at the time I read it, and then some.
(Slyph, Sat 17 May 2008, 19:40, closed)

Religious opinions
Perhaps I should be clearer about my religious opinions, or lack of them for that matter. I see religion as a hobby, a hobby that I am not interested in. As with any hobby some people take it very serious and let it effect there lives and some people just have a small interest. So my angle of attack was one of general interest as a few friends recommended this as a good read either way. The subject matter was not of importance to me but I found the tone to be bolshie and patronising. Needless to say I wont be taking there literary advice again.
(CaptainCuntyBollocks the man who can with a frying pan full of lamb, Sat 17 May 2008, 20:29, closed)

Yay!
Dawkins is as much of a fundamentalist cockstain as the nutters he rails against. as an agnostic i dont need to be told repeatedly how stupid i am for thinking theres a chance theres a creator. id like to violate his arse with a fucking inverted crucifix.
(biscuit bill, Sun 18 May 2008, 0:46, closed)

come on and let it out
i'm glad this post is being used as a electronic/cathartic punchbag. Fuck Dawkins, Fuck any preachy self rightious bastards. had a bit to drink so excuse the bad language.
(CaptainCuntyBollocks the man who can with a frying pan full of lamb, Sun 18 May 2008, 1:18, closed)

I haven't read it
so I'm not sure that I can really comment with any real weight.

However, the title alone- "The God Delusion"- tells me a lot about how he views the entire matter of faith in a supreme being.

Bullshit, say I. Unless you can give conclusive proof, your opinion is merely that- an opinion. And opinions are like assholes- everyone has one, and some stink more than others.

Anyone who claims to have the definitive answer on whether or not God exists is, by definition, full of shit. Let him give a falsifiable hypothesis, or let him shut the fuck up.

Dawkins is a twat.
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Sun 18 May 2008, 2:09, closed)

As an aside...
i also have it on good faith that dawkins molests kids. what kind of man rapes baby goats?
(biscuit bill, Sun 18 May 2008, 3:46, closed)

Clearly most of those criticising this book have not read it properly
or at all.

Dawkins states repeatedly that he is not claiming to have proof that god does not exist. Indeed the crux of his argument is that science NEVER claims to have final proof of anything (there always exists the possibility that new evidence can falsify previous theories and present new ones), unlike religion which demands that you unconditionally accept it has the absolute and total truth (no matter how ridiculous its claims are).

All he claims is that the probability that there is no god is vastly greater than the probability that there is. Which is bloody obvious.

You might find his tone annoying - who doesn't? but criticise his book on what is actually in it, not what you wish was in it.
(Lambkin, Sun 18 May 2008, 11:28, closed)

The myth of
"Fundamentalist Atheism" is bullshit. Atheism is immune to fundamentalism. Yes, it is possible to be a Staunch atheist, an Obnoxious atheist, or whatever, but one is unlikely to be convinced by the ABSCENCE of a belief in a cause to, for example, crash a fucking plane into a building for the glory of your pet bullshit.
(Slyph, Mon 19 May 2008, 2:50, closed)

Dawkins is rather arrogant
and has a worrying tendency to suggest that those who work in the field of genetics and evolution have a higher plane of understanding then others (here's a clue: we don't)

But most of the criticism in the replies here I'm afraid does smack of not understanding his theories properly. I agree his somewhat smug self confidence can you wind you up, but the vast majority of his arguments are scientifically pretty fucking watertight.

and of course he's biased. Everyone is biased. The difference, and this is what you're missing calling his work "wank for the docile masses" is that he would change his bias in a hearbeat if there was ever any single piece of evidence to suggest that he was wrong. because he's a scientist, and that's what we do. Those with religious beliefs would not change their mind, because that's kind of how faith and religion work.

He is zealous because he is genuienly worried and afraid of the power religions hold in the world. and rightly fucking so. but being zealous about a scientific belief is not at all the same as standing on street corners spouting fundie beliefs.
(loutre I've said too much, been too unkind, Mon 19 May 2008, 9:34, closed)