it comes to no surprise that these anti-religious loons are trying to convert as many people to atheism and humanism when events like 9/11 were sparked by religious fundamentalism. It is fundamentalism that is the problem, not religion itself. However, these people who have limited understanding of God seek to do damage which is not supposed to be the role of individuals but rather a collective of people who seek to prove that they are right and everyone else who is not like them is wrong. These secular fundamentalists are no different nor any better than their religious counterpart, I find it interesting how much they have in common yet they hate each other.

This war on religion should be more so focused upon the war against fundamentalism, not religion, nor God. These inspired texts have caused much conflict, no one can deny it, but they have also cause people to reach potentials never before reached. Could it be that fundamentalism is the problem being that fundamentalism is what has caused religion to be used for war and personal gain? These critics of religion should be willing to help their religious heretical counterparts in breaking down dogmatic fundamentalism. Instead they dont, they attack all of religiosity as if it was the full problem. These books and others like them are based on ignorance.

Although diehard theologians seem minimally affected by this book according to the author, I would like to say congratulations on "The GOD Delusion" in success in denying the existence of GOD. However, whether or not the author has been successful in giving a meaningful basis for life of ordinary people is yet to be answered. The problem with this kind of scientific thesis is that, if I borrow a paragraph from existing "psychical knowledge," "Science's thesis meets with no answering affirmation in the human heart--and in fact arouses the deepest antipathy." and this may be a reason why people need "God." Prof. Steven Weinberg is quoted by the author as saying (in Chapter 7/ p. 283) "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it...." I agree with the opinion. However, if you take the research results of the late Prof. Ian Stevenson (1918-2007) on "reincarnation of human," then you can also say that "Darwinism is an insult to human dignity, because it says that ape is our distant ancestor!"

For those who choose to believe no explanation is necessary, and for those who choose not to believe no explanation is sufficient. As long as one is alive one has a choice to change his mind to accept god or reject him, he need but ask or deny and he shall recieve what he wants. God is Truth. To live in Truth is to live in freedom. Authentic Love is Love that is freely chosen. For the Author is Authentic. Belief in his existence is in our nature and can be know through reason when we do not let our disordered appetites blind us.

While the arguments and examples in the book are very good, I have to say the best part is that it is actually quite enjoyable to read. Dawkins has a subtle wit and a talent for writing which makes a page-turner out of subject matter which is ordinarily quite dull. Well done!

Dawkins has good points to make. His biggest problem is hideous wordiness. He needs severe editing.

I saw him at a bookstore lecture discussing the book. He is the same in person. Maybe it's an English thing, but the guy really needs to learn to be succinct.

Dawkins has good points to make. His biggest problem is hideous wordiness. He needs severe editing.

I saw him at a bookstore lecture discussing the book. He is the same in person. Maybe it's an English thing, but the guy really needs to learn to be succinct.

Someday, when all is said and done, and we come to accept the fact that God is not a superman dressed in an elegant white robe sitting on a golden throne with a notepad recording everything each one of us does from the time we are born until we take our last breath, this book will take its place as one of the more important works of the new millennium. It is sad that so many will give it low grades for its philosophical content vs. their mythical convictions. Dawkins' work is the great ally of Sam Harris's 'The End of Faith' and a lesser known work, Lucien Gregoire's 2008 biography of the 33-day pope 'Murder in the Vatican: The Revolutionary Life of John Paul & The CIA, Opus Dei and the 1978 Murders'.

John Paul's atheist father, who had spent a lifetime trying to change the Church from the outside, decided it could only be changed from the inside. He secured a grant from the Communist Party of Italy and placed his son - Albino Luciani - in a minor seminary at the age of eleven with the commission to bring change to the Church. A year later, the boy wrote an article in the school newspaper that reached all of Europe, demanding that nations live up to their copyright laws and place a warning on the Old Testament, "This is a work of fiction. Keep away from children." Most laughed at the boy. Yet, Albert Einstein brought world attention to the boy's article, when he called it, "The first bit of common sense to have ever come out of the Roman Catholic Church."

Often labeled the 'Atheist Pontiff' by right wing elements, in his last audience the day before his unwitnessed death, John Paul told a group of bishops, "The fundamental difference between the believer and the atheist is that the believer believes in ghosts and the atheist does not. We must always keep in mind that God is a ghost - a creation of man's imagination. . ." One reason for his demise was that he threatened to bring an end to mysticism in the Church, being a realist, he did not believe in apparitions and miracles claimed by the Church.

I like this one better than i liked satanic bible. But, actually, I like both.
Dawkins is very eloquent and persuasive. I think that everyone who is interested in religions should read this book

Dawkins doesn't mince words or try to be politically correct. He's also not rude, so the book doesn't come across as whiny or angry.

Very compelling attack against all the mumbo-jumbo in the world.

Was immensely useful to me personally.

As an agnostic who believes in evolution and the possibility of God, I found the first half of Richard Dawkins book to be an excellent excercise in logical thinking and his refutations against a belief in God impossible to argue against. At first, I found his reasoning disturbingly air-tight (disturbing since I like to believe, as I think most people do, that there is more to existence than this life, and more meaning to existing than natural selection, which is for whatever reason unsatisfying to me). But as I gradually gave in to his arguments and became more skeptical about God, I started to become skeptical about the assertion that there is most definitely no God. Whereas Dawkins skillfully knocks down every argument one could think of for God, he seems frustrated by his inability to disprove God altogether. I will give in to the caveat that God is most definitely a more complex solution to life than natural selection, and is probably a result of natural selection himself . . . but so what? If there can exist a multiverse and collapsing universes of space-time of varying laws of physics, why could there not be an evolved supreme intellect out there, perhaps of infinite complexity that evolved from one of these other universes? And if the laws of physics breaks down beyond our own universe, what is to say that logic and science also does not break down? (Science is, after all, limited to human thought and human senses. How differently might a dog, if it had the brain, describe the universe? Probably as a series of smells.) Perhaps thought and imagination and faith have more substance in these spaces between universes. This isn't, of course, an argument for God, but an argument that atheists such as Richard Dawkins lack imagination when it comes to matters beyond their field of study. (Why must, for example, everything be described in evolutionairy terms? Dawkins views are almost too colored by his expertise.) Humans have been thinking about the mysteries of the universe and coming up with improved theories for ten thousand years, and neither Darwin nor Dawkins have found the ultimate truth. New discoveries will be made that will flip our world view upside down and be as upsetting to Darwinists as Darwin must be to Christians.

The biggest problem I had with this book, however, is in Dawkins' anti-religious tyrade. While I may not be religious myself, I learned long ago, while arguing with a Jehovas' Witness who I nearly made cry, the value of personal belief. Dawkins compares religion to a side-effect of natural selection, like a moth that flies into a candle flame. His dogmatic contempt for religion is clear and belies the clear-headed and non-subjective attitude of a good scientist. In one chapter in particular, Dawkins is confounded by the pan-cultural phenomenon that is religion, but while he shows the ridiculousness of some of the beliefs of people around the world and mirrors that with Christianity, he oversimplifies and downplays the value of religion as nothing but hokum. The Bible, however, served in ancient times as the collection of all human knowledge, covering fields of academia from literature to poetry, history to science. Yes, even science has its roots in religion, and the same need for truth that so passionately drives Dawkins is what also drove early theologians to write the books of the Bible. Dawkins erroneously suggests that religion may have evolved as a symptom of knowledge passing between adults to children, and that children, whose minds are gullible, developed a trait of gullibility and superstition. I find this in error for two reasons: 1) Children are by nature rebellious and usually seek out their own truth, anyone who has a child will tell you this. 2) Dawkins presupposes that religion is rooted in the irrational mind, when this is not the case. A careful study of most ancient religions will find a considerable amount of reasoning behind its teachings, including the passing of moral and pratical lessons. To the ancient Egyptians, for example, it was rational to believe that gods caused the Nile to flood every year, and this knowledge was passed on to help plan for harvests; in this case, though the prime causation was in error, the logic behind the belief was sound. For this reason I postulate an alternate theory for the natural selection of religion, being simply that it was advantageous for humans to pass on genes for imagination, or the ability to see things not as how they are but as how they might be. Imagination helped the first humans make fire, build homes, and dig graves. Religion developed alongside these early discoveries, and early cave drawings can attest to the imagination involved in faith: recombining animals and humans to create god images, and myths about gods also developed. Imagination was a great tool that helped early humans survive; it's what developed into religion and later into science.

Perhaps Dawkins would benefit by putting down his scientific lens and trying to see religion from a different perspective.

Anyone who picks up this book and seriously reads it in its entirety should not walk away the same person or at the very least would have to seriously question their faith. Unfortunetely, those who really need to read this book won't because of childhood indoctrination of faith. Those who think independently or think critically will appreciate it greatly. It's amazing that this world has reached the 21st century and we are still holding on to bronze age biblical rantings that are beyond logic, reason, and critical thinking. Thanks to Dawkins, he illuminates very eloquently the absurdity of religion, its dangers, and its stunting of critical thinking, science, and advancement of technology. Anyone who still believes in this day of age the virgin birth, being raised from the dead, or the turning of water into wine might just as well believe that the earth is only 6 thousand years old and it's still flat.

Richard Dawkin's latest book, "The GOD Delusion" is a must read for everyone. Theist or Atheist, believer or non-believer, Dawkin's has, for the first time, placed the complete set of arguments about the existence (or non-existence as he would prefer) of God, into a single place for easy reference during after dinner conversation. Not withstanding his relentless negative and somewhat emotional attacks on the believer, his arguments and counter arguments are well written and within easy grasp of all. If you can read this book and maintain your own level minded perspective you will be in strong possession of significant knowledge to either impress your dinner guests or perhaps upset them to the point of keeping them from ever coming to your house again -- if that is your wish. In the end, based on the comprehensive research he has provided, either perspective can still be argued, although he has clearly stated that he is trying to convert believers to his side -- but he has missed the best and perhaps newest argument due to a lack of evidence.

Most of his arguments are old, 19th century as he has been accused, but never quite understood why. And most contemporary believers have reconciled their faith with the natural science of the day. However, he has one new intriguing thread with regard to the origin of religion and he pulls on it, but he freely admits it is arguably one of perhaps many threads that could have caused the human brain to develop religious beliefs as a bi-product of selecting for other things pertinent to survival, or whatever was deemed important during the selection process. And this thread bumps up against something far more important than religion -- It cries forth with the question of human consciousness and it's evolutionary development -- a.k.a. Julian Jaynes. Alas Dawkins never crosses fully into the pursuit of consciousness and it's potential origins leaving us to wonder if Jaynes was a genius or a quack -- I wonder why? If you prove consciousness is an illusion than absolutely you have proven there is no God. He has unfortunately shied away from this subject. It is the substance necessary to create not just artificial life but artificial intelligence. A subject he never addresses -- although he poignantly relays the tragic end to Alan Turing, the father of AI, for a completely different reason.

More important to his writings, however, is his insistence that it is the believer who is suffering from a delusion, when it is just as clear that he suffers from some sort of emotional discontinuity, perhaps paranoia, that propels his own delusions about what is and what is not true religious faith. So here Dawkin's labors away, trifling with the Almighty, a personal God or natural selection -- no one should really care since both belief in the Almighty or the processes of natural selection are far stronger than Richard Dawkins. Regardless of what they may believe during the good times, during the dark of night, or on their death bed, does not change the fact that the universe is really really big, perhaps infinite, and he is far from unlocking its ultimate secrets -- something he freely admits in the end. The secrets that he hopes to find, keep slipping through his fingers as the universe keeps expanding and the smallest building blocks of matter keep turning back into something that he cannot quite grasp. Yet the curiosity of science propels him forward in his quest -- with such conviction to know or finally know, that there is no God. This is clearly a crusade of sorts for Dawkin's, yet he maintains that he is an atheist. Somewhere in Chapter 2 though he rates himself a level 6 agnostic -- allowing for a very very small possibility that there actually is a God. Or else he couldn't continue his quest, it wouldn't make logical sense. So he too, is deluding himself. By allowing himself a brief, if not unconsciously repressed uncertainty, about the meaning of life enables him to go on his atheistic crusade -- mimicking all of the same characteristics of religion that he so soundly criticizes. This is his first state of irony.

Second, if social behavior including morals and values actually evolved as he suggests, including religion, then these things are hard wired into our physiology. They are firmware, not software, which makes them real. And no matter what delusion he thinks believers are suffering from -- he goes to quite some extent to explain why these actions are real and necessary -- believers, therefore, are not suffering from anything false. They do what they do because they are supposed to. They are behaving as their creator, designer, or natural selector would have them behave...hence reality, no matter whose side you are on. So twice Dawkin's delusion has taken an ironic twist -- which is truly ironic. And this makes for the best kind of after dinner conversation.

Dawkins most significant contribution to society, though this particular book, however, has nothing at all to do with God or religion. It has to do with the abuse of young minds. His stance should be every parent's stance and the brainwashing of young minds in ways that would damage their mental develoment is indeed problematic. Religion, no religion, God, or no God, we do not have the right to lie to our children in ways that would torment or terrorize their thoughts. Particularly in ways that would fundamentally alter the way they brains are developing -- at least before the age of eight or nine. To do otherwise would be the same as altering their bodies physically for instance, the heinous binding of a young girl's feet in certain countries. Dawkin's carries this topic quite well -- but I'm not sure why it's in this particular book.

So in the end, Dawkins has given us a good book -- but has only raised more questions upon which the reader is still left to answer on his or her own -- science gives Dawkins his meaning of life, not humanity in general...and this is irony in his own delusion.

This book is a call to the rational critical thinker to actively oppose supersition. It also intellectually slices and dices all religious assumptions. The final chapters are the illumination of modern scientific knowledge, and the liberating appreciation of logic based on the non-prejudiced examination of nature.

Richard Dawkin's latest book, "The GOD Delusion" is a must read for everyone. Theist or Atheist, believer or non-believer, Dawkin's has, for the first time, placed the complete set of arguments about the existence (or non-existence as he would prefer) of God, into a single place for easy reference during after dinner conversation. Not withstanding his relentless negative and somewhat emotional attacks on the believer, his arguments and counter arguments are well written and within easy grasp of all. If you can read this book and maintain your own level minded perspective you will be in strong possession of significant knowledge to either impress your dinner guests or perhaps upset them to the point of keeping them from ever coming to your house again -- if that is your wish. In the end, based on the comprehensive research he has provided, either perspective can still be argued, although he has clearly stated that he is trying to convert believers to his side -- but he has missed the best and perhaps newest argument due to a lack of evidence.

Most of his arguments are old, 19th century as he has been accused, but never quite understood why. And most contemporary believers have reconciled their faith with the natural science of the day. However, he has one new intriguing thread with regard to the origin of religion and he pulls on it, but he freely admits it is arguably one of perhaps many threads that could have caused the human brain to develop religious beliefs as a bi-product of selecting for other things pertinent to survival, or whatever was deemed important during the selection process. And this thread bumps up against something far more important than religion -- It cries forth with the question of human consciousness and it's evolutionary development -- a.k.a. Julian Jaynes. Alas Dawkins never crosses fully into the pursuit of consciousness and it's potential origins leaving us to wonder if Jaynes was a genius or a quack -- I wonder why? If you prove consciousness is an illusion than absolutely you have proven there is no God. He has unfortunately shied away from this subject. It is the substance necessary to create not just artificial life but artificial intelligence. A subject he never addresses -- although he poignantly relays the tragic end to Alan Turing, the father of AI, for a completely different reason.

More important to his writings, however, is his insistence that it is the believer who is suffering from a delusion, when it is just as clear that he suffers from some sort of emotional discontinuity, perhaps paranoia, that propels his own delusions about what is and what is not true religious faith. So here Dawkin's labors away, trifling with the Almighty, a personal God or natural selection -- no one should really care since both belief in the Almighty or the processes of natural selection are far stronger than Richard Dawkins. Regardless of what they may believe during the good times, during the dark of night, or on their death bed, does not change the fact that the universe is really really big, perhaps infinite, and he is far from unlocking its ultimate secrets -- something he freely admits in the end. The secrets that he hopes to find, keep slipping through his fingers as the universe keeps expanding and the smallest building blocks of matter keep turning back into something that he cannot quite grasp. Yet the curiosity of science propels him forward in his quest -- with such conviction to know or finally know, that there is no God. This is clearly a crusade of sorts for Dawkin's, yet he maintains that he is an atheist. Somewhere in Chapter 2 though he rates himself a level 6 agnostic -- allowing for a very very small possibility that there actually is a God. Or else he couldn't continue his quest, it wouldn't make logical sense. So he too, is deluding himself. By allowing himself a brief, if not unconsciously repressed uncertainty, about the meaning of life enables him to go on his atheistic crusade -- mimicking all of the same characteristics of religion that he so soundly criticizes. This is his first state of irony.

Second, if social behavior including morals and values actually evolved as he suggests, including religion, then these things are hard wired into our physiology. They are firmware, not software, which makes them real. And no matter what delusion he thinks believers are suffering from -- he goes to quite some extent to explain why these actions are real and necessary -- believers, therefore, are not suffering from anything false. They do what they do because they are supposed to. They are behaving as their creator, designer, or natural selector would have them behave...hence reality, no matter whose side you are on. So twice Dawkin's delusion has taken an ironic twist -- which is truly ironic. And this makes for the best kind of after dinner conversation.

Dawkins most significant contribution to society, though this particular book, however, has nothing at all to do with God or religion. It has to do with the abuse of young minds. His stance should be every parent's stance and the brainwashing of young minds throughout history is indeed an affront to humanity. Religion, no religion, God, or no God, we do not have the right to lie to our children in ways that would torment or terrorize their thoughts. Particularly in ways that would fundamentally alter the way they brains are developing -- at least before the age of eight or nine. To do otherwise would be the same as altering their bodies physically for instance, the heinous binding of a young girl's feet in certain countries. Dawkin's carries this topic quite well -- but I'm not sure why it's in this particular book.

So in the end, Dawkins has given us a good book -- but has only raised more questions upon which the reader is still left to answer on his or her own -- science gives Dawkins his meaning of life, not humanity in general...and this is irony in his own delusion.

Lots of confirmation on the kaleidoscope of topics in this area. This is a tough read in "England English" but a strong testament to Dawkins experience, knowledge and intelligence all brought to bear in this Atheist Owners Manual.

I agree with Dr. Dawkins, from one of his interviews: his books are unlikely to cause anyone to lose their "faith" - if they're already invested (although he still had hope). He says that it's mainly for middle-of-the roaders (or something to that effect) -- those of us (especially in the U.S.) who didn't even know Atheism was an option. I've always been an Atheist (despite my Mom's best attempts), but didn't know what to call it - what do you call the absence of unrealistic belief? The words "sane" and "logical" come to mind for me - but not for most people. I had no idea there were so many others like me out there. Now I know. Thank you Dr. Dawkins, for letting us OUT!

Lots of confirmation on the kaleidoscope of topics in this area. This is a tough read in "England English" but a strong testament to Dawkins experience, knowledge and intelligence all brought to bear in this Atheist Owners Manual.

I agree with Dr. Dawkins, from one of his interviews: his books are unlikely to cause anyone to lose their "faith" - if they're already invested (although he still had hope). He says that it's mainly for middle-of-the roaders (or something to that effect) -- those of us (especially in the U.S.) who didn't even know Atheism was an option. I've always been an Atheist (despite my Mom's best attempts), but didn't know what to call it - what do you call the absence of unrealistic belief? The words "sane" and "logical" come to mind for me - but not for most people. I had no idea there were so many others like me out there. Now I know. Thank you Dr. Dawkins, for letting us OUT!

Richard Dawkins rationally analyzes why there is no god from every possible angle, and why religion hurts societies. Much of the book is like a debate that takes the token responses of theists and then a long and thorough rebuttal from Richard Dawkins. I already knew a lot of the arguments Dawkins goes over just by thinking about it on my own, which many are quite obvious yet need to be stated. The part of the book I found most interesting was how religion hurts societies, which no one really talks about. The arguments Dawkins bring up are very complete and if you're an atheist looking for some added tools in your arsenal of argumentation, this book is perfect for that too. All in all, the book is pretty long, somewhat dry at parts, and is not a quick read either. If you are open-minded and/or interested in the subject I would suggest this book. I don't think the book is going have the intended effect of converting many people to atheism, because believing in god involves preconceived faith not rational thinking imho, but is likely to make more atheists come out of the closet (for lack of a better metaphor) because of the comfort this book will bring to atheists.

Richard Dawkins is brilliant and rationally analyzes why there is no god from every possible angle, and why religion hurts societies. I don't think it's going to convert many people to atheism because believing in god involves faith, not rational thinking imho. I already knew a lot of the arguments Dawkins goes over just by thinking about it on my own, which many are pretty obvious. The book is pretty long and is not a quick read either. If you are open-minded and interested in the subject I would suggest this book.

Professor Dawkins compares and contrasts all theories and "proofs" of an existence of a higher being. Using the scientific perspective he voids all arguments pointed out by theists and creationists. Awesome book and I highly recommend it!

After reading The God delusion, a feeling of reasurance and vigor enters one self. Many of my thoughts were properly disected, analyzed and refrased so the path to understand them is clear now.
The book is easy to understand, funny where it would help the point the author is making and the writing is fresh, interesting, fast and it really makes you understand the point Mr. Dawkins is making.
It is so good, so logical and rational, that it will probably exarcerbate the religious fanatics and denounce with the usual hate his thoughts.
Buy this book...

Even if you don't buy in to every argument Dawkins makes (and you probably shouldn't), I think it's an interesting read. Worthwhile.

For many years I have dwelled snugly (smugly?) with the idea of being Agnostic. Dawkins had me convinced in the first 3 chapters that there actually IS evidence of the non-existance of a personal god. He inspired me to read further. I read the bible again, and it can't stand up against his arguments. How enlightening! I find it hard to believe that millions of people still believe in the old superstitions of fear, guilt and slavery, when there is so much scientific evidence to free them.

As a former Catholic Christian fundamentalist, Richard Dawkins book has aided me immensely in removing the "immoveable, unchangeable" blocks to reason and truth. Especially helpful are the sections treating "natural selection". I could see the light as I gradually floated upward toward the oxygen I needed to recover from the abuse I suffered about eternal damnation, fear, and "suffering is good". Regardless of the outcome, I can encourage others who have suffered the same, to let his book speak to you. "the truth shall make you free". Also recommend Christopher Hitchens - "god is not great".

The God Delusion is a book that really ought to be read by open-minded people of faith. My favorite point in the book is the idea that having two views, God(s) and no God(s), doesn't mean we have a 50/50 toss-up.

As far as any kind of a "call-to-arms" goes for secularism I'm still on the fence. I'm convinced that pure fundamentalism is terrible, and that we really need to keep "Intelligent" Design out of public schools, but I attend a more moderate church with my family and I see no real dangerous delusion, just some intellectual inconsistencies.

I don't believe that there isn't a god, I'm CONVINCED there isn't one, (a subtle difference.) I put it like that for personal reasons which I think anyone who reads this book will understand.

In the end religion is going to be around for a long time. Maybe forever as someone like Chomsky or Hitchens would argue. Atheism/secularism may be loosing the masses of the layman but I don't think this is true with the masses of higher education and people who really enjoying asking the tough questions.

Read this book. Sit down with your friends, and yes your family too, and have a civilized conversation about Dawkins brilliant collection of ideas. It's awkward and tense at first, but you'll find that as you argue your viewpoint you'll learn more about yourself and what you believe. I don't think we have enough of that these days...let's shake up the boat.

Wouldn't it be nice if all disagreements were expressed over coffee and book swapping?

Though he has received highly virulent criticism for his books and opinions, (I think) Dawkins does a remarkably fair job of presenting his views on religion and god(s). It is simply a result of the fact that the issue itself causes a great deal of argument and disagreement that it can be difficult to discuss. Dawkins, however, does a wonderful job in being non-offensive in his remarks - if the evidence requires it, sometimes one cannot avoid being rather blunt in showing it.

If anyone actually takes the time to understand/read his work, one can clearly find a well-reasoned and thoroughly researched argument. Indeed, in this book, Dawkins continues to present the case in such a way that I am constantly amazed that anyone can presist in disbelieving in evolution.

I find, more often than not, that Dawkins has the ability to present evidence, logic, and (quite simply) common sense in ways that make me say, "yes! that is exactly how I feel!"

Now in my late 40's, I grew up quite literally in the shadow of Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, OK--the epicenter of American Evangelicals. My Mother was Roman Catholic and my father Southern Baptist. It's taken many years and Herculean effort to escape such an auspicious orbit. And I thought I had long escaped. I eventually settled into a live-and-let-live, middle-of-the-road agnosticism.

Then I read this book. And I realized that that passive acceptance, that "live and let live" approach to American Fundamentalist Christianity I'd held, was itself dangerous. By not openly refuting something so blatantly ignorant and destructive, I was passively contributing to it. I now realize this to be clearly true and I thank the author for this powerful distinction. Especially as I reflected back on my own religious indoctrination, as a very young child, I desperately needed even a wink from a wise soul, as if to say, "Don't worry son, the smart ones don't actually drink the kool-aid." Only after reading this book, I realized, I had to start standing up for what I believe in. And especially, for what I don't believe in.

Those schooled reviewers who criticize Dawkins as being too hard on religion or especially personal spirituality are still missing the point. If you believe in anything other than a Fundamentalist, Literalistic interpretation of religious texts, you are abjectly hypocritical. If forced to accept your own believes literally, you would abandon them. Moreover, by accepting them as being divine but also vague, you accept that any interpretation is acceptable--it's a personal choice (and yet, a divine overarching truth). You might then say, those choices, however, have limitations--say laws to prevent inspired apostles applying their personal interpretation as to fly planes into tall buildings. But then you're saying religious texts are superseded by laws, composed by sober societies. So your religious ideal is now relegated to a very vague, still divine, but not proscriptive idea, which you're entitled to because it makes you feel good. Like smoking pot. And yet, indulging even privately in that inebriant is illegal.

I highly recommend reading this book in corroboration with Letters to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris and Misquoting Jesus by Epstein.

This book is important. If you love religion, read it. You've nothing to fear. Right?

If you are an atheist this is a good book for you, but Richard does not really try to convince us that there is no God, his arguments are of a different kind.

I was an atheist and I can understand Richard, but there is a higher place from atheism which pictures "God" in a different light than the classical one (bible). The progression is like this: God (bible) -> no God (atheism) -> new God (revelation)

The book was a page turner at some points, in average about 100 pages were the good part. Sometimes I found it rather boring.

A good book in average, but not what I expected, his aim was more to point out the flaws in religion (good arguments) than to prove that there is no God, purpose, etc.

Richard Dawkins has incisively separated fact from fiction (i.e. god) in making a case that an omniscient God is very unlikely to exist and is not the source of all that is good. See the youtube presentation by Dawkins in Lynchburg VA for more information if you are interested.

Before I read the god delusion I was hoping to find something fresh; perhaps, a true objective scientific quest into theology and the world of religion. Instead all I found was a subjectively constructed intolerant stickman paradigm created by Dawkins himself.

His so called `God hypothesis' for example was not scientific, it's not even good theology, his theological hypothesis is fashioned in his hatred for religion that it is anything but rational and objective. Though (as stated during the beginning of his book) Dawkins intended his book to be a "conscious raiser" with the goal that when theists read it they would become atheists: I came away feeling disillusioned by the god delusion. I certainly didn't want to embrace the atheism that Dawkins was presenting.

To be clear: Dawkins use of cherry picking style hermeneutics, poor historical scholarship in the humanities, and apparent intolerance for religion is what threw me off. It is after all a pity. This is because I think Dawkins is a brilliant scientist and yet the god delusion isn't all that brilliant, the book doesn't live up to the talents and gifts that Dawkins has demonstrated previously.

My conconlusion here is that it's bad enough religions historically haven't been tolerant systems and it certainly doesn't help matters none when more intolerance is generated-even from the likes of Dawkins' atheism.

If you have doubts about religion versus science then read this book. It is clear and cites good evidence to support it's claims. A book to read several times.

Although this book was a bit winded, it for the most part sailed through all the usual arguments that we atheists have in our beliefs ( or lack there-of) towards a "God" (do you still have to capitalize that word when it doesn't mean anything to you).

I must say that I think I have read enough about Darwinism. I would like to hear what a few astrophysysicts have to say on the matter.

Anyway, good read but be prepared some really long, boardering on run-on, sentences.

Very interesting book. I was told every day that the Bible was FACT, raised in a Catholic school, etc. It is good to see the other side of the argument. Freed my mind!

I hope this doesn't send me straight to hell!

God, if you don't want me to publish this give me a sign, lightning, wind - something...

Alright, You've spoken...

Dawkins attacks God and religion like a bull terrier.Fortunately in this case his attack is not fatal.The only God he seems to know is the angry punitive God of patriarchy and fundamentalism.The same goes for his concept of religion.He has nothing new to say on the god of patriarchy, who has already been better disposed of by the likes of Mary Daly and M. Sjoo.The God of love and forgiveness is alien to Dawkins. He mainly relies on reason to "disprove" God.However reason has its limitations, it can't give all the answers to life, a fact not considered by Dawkins.Humans are more than thinking reeds, they have other capacities such as feelings, intuition, imagination, soul and spirit. Dawkins does not consider that we have a range of faculties with which to experience the cosmos. His argument against personal experience of God is simplistic in the extreme.He gives some examples where the mind has been deluded. In one case, when he was a boy he heard a weird noise at night in bed. He investigated and found it was the wind whistling through the keyhole.He states the mind is easily deluded, therefore he would not believe anyone who said they had an experience of God.So much for a scientific attitude.In no case does he consider different viewpoints and weigh the evidence.His mind is made up from the start. He says religion is an irrationality that is imposed on children.But he is the one at fault, for he has no conception of a spiritual dimension to human life.He is like a tone deaf person saying music is just noise, abolish it because I can't appreciate it. He thinks there would be less intolerance and violence if religion was abolished. But he does not consider that it is the fault of humans, not religion in the abstract. His knowledge of human nature is lacking. There are usually people around who use religion for political purposes and to repress others.This is a misuse of religion.Dawkins thinks the world would be a better place if all were atheists.However, he avoids the question of atheistical communism in this equation.He states there is no evidence atheism motivated Joseph Stalin's brutality. Atheists can be bad, so the problem of evil is not solved by atheism.Dawkins has written a one-eyed simplistic book. He is just as intolerant as those he criticises.People in glass houses should not throw stones, as they say. Concerning this book,Dawkins has a handicap in that his spiritual faculties are lying dormant, they have not sprouted.

An ok effort from Dawkins. As an atheist, I found it somewhat ho-hum, and there are very few new arguments in this book.

The book does, however, act as a decent reference book of the bulk of arguments from both sides.

Dawkins does show a little bit of laziness here and after addressing a series of historical philosophical arguments for the existence of God, neglects fully the TAG (Transcendental argument for the existence of God), which is one of the more recent and well known arguments. In some ways, Dawkins points in the book line up and agree with the TAG, that is, where he says that we don't know we can trust our senses, or why the world makes sense.

In the 1st chapter, he also makes a mistake in discussing a court case where a young boy wears an offensive t-shirt to school. After reading the court proceedings, I realized that Dawkins presented it in an unusual slant, and it has little to do with religion at all.

Dawkins also mixes up "The Gospel of Thomas" with the so called "Infancy Gospel of Thomas", but I can't imagine that he cared that much, since he shows little respect for the bible and probably thinks that they are all about the same anyway.

Other than that, the book is clearly written, well organized and progresses well with each chapter building on top of the previous chapters.

While Dawkins may convince a few fence sitters, I don't think he will disturb many theists, who will view him as hostile immediately and probably stop listening. Dawkins has a difficult time sympathizing with a theistic reader and makes almost no effort to do any more than present a barrage of facts and sits there at the end and says "if you don't believe me, you're stupid".

As I said, good as a reference, but not much more than that unless you are seeing ideas like this for the first time.

Hey whats up folks? This book is for me one of the most well thought arguments on behalf of atheism that I have come across. His argumants are sharply laid out, I kept getting the feeling that as an agnostic that I was a perfect target for his words. Meaning that he would present an argument as if he were leading me down a winding path with the only route of escape being the shedding of my belief in either god and/or organized religion. There was one problem and that is that after all is said and done no scientific theory is permanent, scientific knowledge is tentative meaning that as a rational minded person I could agree with him on the organized religion part but was not in any way able to follow him on the ultimate argument of god's non-existence. That being said do please pick up this book, whether you are a theist,an agnostic, or an atheist it will only make you a better person for hearing this brilliant man out.

I find myself thinking "How am I supposed to review a book written by someone who is smarter than I am?"

So instead of doing what most people do -- instead of attacking his arguments -- let me talk about the book's structure, style and flow.

Which is to say, there is some. Dawkins first explains his position. He then outlines his intended goal, and how he intends to get there. He tackles each argument for the existence of god with a counter-argument based on essentially the same thing every time. I call it the "my position isn't as logically bad as your position" method. In other words, he admits that he has no proof god does not exist. His only support for his argument for atheism is the unlikelihood of god's existence in terms of probability.

Essentially, Dawkins is saying "I'm better than theists because my belief is more believable".

Which, to me, is not worth wrapping hundreds of pages around. So I found the book to be a bore after the first 5 chapters or so. He could've distilled the salient points of the book into a single essay. And for that, it gets 3 stars, which I feel is generous.

The Gerswhins got right to the point when they wrote "The things that you're liable to read in the Bible, they ain't necessarily so." Likewise did Augusten Burroughs when, in one of his books, he wrote something along the line of "Jesus is just Santa Claus for adults". With those pithy examples in mind, Richard Dawkins' THE GOD DELUSION would pack more of a knockout punch if the author had trimmed down his exhaustive prose and gone instead for a blunter, more direct style. There are hard nuggets of truth buried among the pages and pages of scientific and psychological examinations for why people believe what they do and how those beliefs continue to spread - perhaps like viruses - even in the face of conflicting evidence. (For example, Dawkins relates that our universe - perhaps one of many but we just don't know yet - contains about 100 BILLION galaxies; with so much real estate to manage, it does seem a trifle unlikely that God - or any Supreme Being - would have time to pop into your head and tell you to pick the job at Starbucks over Target, for example, or answer any prayers from the hundreds of millions of folks who pray on a daily basis.) Readers just have to dig for the kernels and keep slogging long and hard through Dawkins' "viewed from every facet" approach to demolishing religious irrationality. Still, the book does make the point that man created God (and gods plural, especially the ones no longer worshipped liked Osiris, Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Athena, Isis, etc. - let's just take it one further to the big "G" himself and get it over with...) and not the other way around, and that if we're to worship anyone, it's Charles Darwin for formulating the ideas of evolution and natural selection. Sam Harris' THE END OF FAITH goes more for the jugular and so packs a much stronger wallop than THE GOD DELUSION - especially in Harris' damning howler of a chapter on Islam - but Dawkins' gentler approach eventually causes for greater reflection on the persistence and terrifyingly real dangers of religion in our modern world.

First of all, I can't help but wonder how many of the one star reviewers actually read the book. Saying the author is going to hell is NOT a review.

Anyway, maybe I should judge, because i don't plan on getting into detail about the book. I will say though, that this book is not only a great read, but a truly eye opening and interesting read.

If you have doubts about the religion that was forced upon you...read this book!

I am very sad that this man does not know the love that Jesus has for him. I will pray for him to let Christ into his life.

I purchased this book after an atheist coworker of mine told me that Richard Dawkins had the real truth about Christianity and the existence of God. I thought sounded ironic that a man who refused to put his faith in a higher power would easily put his faith in an English scientist. I also believed that if Dawkins were to believe that he held all the answers (he doesn't seem to believe so) that would make him just downright arrogant.

Don't be fooled here. Richard Dawkins does believe in God. Well, he believe in a God. The God he believes in was a man named Charles Darwin. In the same way fundamentalist Christians accept everything written in the Bible Dawkins accepts everyone of Darwin's writings.

Dawkins presents an extremely slanted argument in his book. Those scientist and other well known people who are atheists he uses adjectives such as "enlightened" and "intelligent". Those who believe in God, no matter how much schooling they have received are labeled with such adjectives as "superstitions" and "hysterical".

That's not to say that Dawkins doesn't make some valid points. Christianity is filled with bigots who use scripture to justify their hatred of homosexuals and others that are to be called `sinners'. Christians are filled with people who are willing to kill in matters that are none of their business (abortion) and that many young boys have fallen prey to some Catholic Priests. As true as these may be that does not mean that God doesn't exist.

Even though I disagree with Dawkins and his disbelief in any sort of supernatural God, I concede that this is a well written book with some interesting arguments. Do I agree with those arguments? Nope. And I compare those who argue that God doesn't exist because they read this book to those who make their political points based on something they heard Rush Limbaugh say on the radio. People should make up their own minds.

The truth is that if you combine all the intelligence of every human being who has lived, is currently alive, and will live you would probably still come up with less than one percent of the total knowledge of the universe. To say there isn't a God is as dogmatic as saying there is a God. It's all about faith.

There fear is undeniable in Dawkins' words. Just read it and you will see. The man is afraid of God. Whatever the reason for that is between Dawkins and God, and completely none of my business, but the reality of the fear (the hurt of a man denying religious conviction?) is palpable.

"The God Delusion" is a work of desparation in many ways. From the language, it's clear that the one person Dawkins is trying to convince is himself. That makes the book worth reading, actually, for the extreme pathology of his overly defensive efforts to craft a reality for himself to allay his fears.

At times, he attempts to appear smug. At times, he attempts ( a very nervous) belittlement of christianity. But the one overarching characteristic of the prose is Dawkins' absolutism. He is absolutely right, and no criticism of his position is even to be contemplated. (After all, houses of cards cannot withstand even the slightest nudge...). That creates a very defensive, vulnerable undertone in the text, covered by a veneer of false bravado.

A psychiatrist would have a field day dissecting this text.

Richard Dawkins utilizes a lot of solipsistic rhetoric and speculation on which he bases his premise: that God is scientificially illogical and thereby can not reasonably exist. Yet, he does not argue cogently from point to point, but keeps returning the arguments of Darwinian evolution and statistical probability.

Let us remember though, that empirical reasoning is a useful human construct that allows us to impose some degree of order on the cosmos in order to shape our understanding of it. However, empiricism itself recognizes that its suppositions are useful until new evidence presents itself.

Much of Dawkins' arguments are based on supposition, speculation and self-serving theories that don't really don't have much of a basis in fact. He tries to draw tenuous analogies to weak hypothesis that simply aren't very convincing overall, and don't tie together well enough as a treatise to support such a bold title.

Some of his points are amusing, and some standing by themselves, are valid, but comparing Cargo Cults to Christianity and Scientology is really a stretch.

Mr. Dawkins bases his arguments on the implicit premise that human reason is practically flawless, and that we know everything useful and important that could possibly be known. Otherwise, how can we know that his arguments are in fact correct? Simply because you can't bottle the essence of God and analyze what he is comprised of and determine how he functions in a laboratory, it is illogical and foolish to expect Him to exist?

Comparing what you know to what you don't is admittedly useful, but the analogy breaks down when you try to apply the scientific method to determine or refute the existence of God. We're trying to apply our limited human understanding to fathom the infinite. It's a noble and worthy effort, but ultimately, in spite of his eloquence, the arguments Dawkins has presented against the existence of God simply aren't terribly compelling.

Unlike Martin Luther, I don't see faith as reason as adversaries, but rather as complementaries - as each has the potential to mitigate the hubris of the other. I do not deny the existence of God - but I don't accept many of the things that are attributed as having come from Him.

I don't deny the existence of Mr. Dawkins, either - even though I don't believe in Atheists. If his perceptual framework as a biologist leaves him no room for belief in a deity, I haven't any issue with that.

But using the framework of his scientific disciplines to try and convince me that my Theism is equivalent to the superstition of an unenlightened aborigine? He's welcome to try, but I remain unconvinced that he's right.

He believes that there is no God. I believe that there is. So what? Neither of us is right, neither of us is wrong. It's not a competition.

He argues that faith is irrational, as is romantic love. Ah yes, and so are art and music.

Yet, it is a little bit of these types of irrationality, well-directed and channeled through friendship, romance and artistic pursuits, that enrich our lives and continue to bring more beauty into our world.

I would think that a hyperrational, non-intuitive world in which all the mysteries had been solved or rebuked wouldn't be worth living in. Could we use more rationality? Absolutely. But do we need to eliminate or discard everything that scientific method can't create or empiricial reason can't resolve? If we did, we'd lose our compassion, as well.

That's what I perceive as Richard Dawkin's line of reasoning carried out to its ultimate, absolute conclusion. If we're not arguing about whose faith is right, then we're trying to argue that faith itself is wrong.

A much better book in this vein is Sam Harris' "The End of Faith". It presents arguments against blind faith which are much more thoughtful and well-reasoned than Dawkins' polemic.

Richard Dawkins utilizes a lot of solipsistic rhetoric and speculation on which he bases his premise: that God is scientificially illogical and thereby can not reasonably exist. Yet, he does not argue cogently from point to point, but keeps returning the arguments of Darwinian evolution and statistical probability.

Let us remember though, that empirical reasoning is a useful human construct that allows us to impose some degree of order on the cosmos in order to shape our understanding of it. However, empiricism itself recognizes that its suppositions are useful until new evidence presents itself.

Much of Dawkins' arguments are based on supposition, speculation and self-serving theories that don't really don't have much of a basis in fact. He tries to draw tenuous analogies to weak hypothesis that simply aren't very convincing overall, and don't tie together well enough as a treatise to support such a bold title.

Some of his points are amusing, and some standing by themselves, are valid, but comparing Cargo Cults to Christianity and Scientology is really a stretch.

Mr. Dawkins bases his arguments on the implicit premise that human reason is practically flawless, and that we know everything useful and important that could possibly be known. Otherwise, how can we know that his arguments are in fact correct? Simply because you can't bottle the essence of God and analyze what he is comprised of and how he functions in a laboratory, it is illogical and foolish to expect Him to exist?

Comparing what you know to what you don't is admittedly useful, but the analogy breaks down when you try to apply the scientific method to determine or refute the existence of God. We're trying to apply our limited human understanding to fathom the infinite. It's a noble and worthy effort, but ultimately, in spite of his eloquence, the arguments Dawkins has presented against the existence of God simply aren't terribly compelling.

Unlike Martin Luther, I don't see faith as reason as adversaries, but rather as complementaries - as each has the potential to mitigate the hubris of the other. I do not deny the existence of God - but I don't accept many of the things that are attributed as having come from Him.

I don't deny the existence of Mr. Dawkins, either - even though I don't believe in Atheists. If his perceptual framework as a biologist leaves him no room for belief in a deity, I haven't any issue with that.

But using the framework of his scientific disciplines to try and convince me that my Theism is equivalent to the superstition of an unenlightened aborigine? He's welcome to try, but I remain unconvinced that he's right.

He believes that there is no God. I believe that there is. So what? Neither of us is right, neither of us is wrong. It's not a competition.

He argues that faith is irrational, as is romantic love. Ah yes, and so are art and music.

Yet, it is a little bit of these types of irrationality, well-directed and channeled through friendship, romance and artistic pursuits, that enrich our lives and continue to bring more beauty into our world.

I would think that a hyperrational, non-intuitive world in which all the mysteries had been solved or rebuked wouldn't be worth living in. Could we use more rationality? Absolutely. But do we need to eliminate or discard everything that scientific method can't create or empiricial reason can't resolve? If we did, we'd lose our compassion, as well.

That's what I perceive as Richard Dawkin's line of reasoning carried out to its ultimate, absolute conclusion. If we're not arguing about whose faith is right, then we're trying to argue that faith itself is wrong.

Richard Harris' books on this subject are much more thoughtful and well-reasoned.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." - Psalm 14:1 "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." - John 3:18 "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." - Matthew 10:32-33. "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." - Matthew 12:32.

The Creator of the universe calls him a fool. OUCH. That's GOT to hurt!

This book just reinforced my true feelings about religion. If you look at things in a logical & orderly manner, it just doesn't seem to make any sense what-so-ever. Just think of how much more pleasant the world would be without the hatred & war that religion has caused throughout the ages. Religion is just another way of dividing people.

An impressive effort in collecting all kinds of evidence, articles and sayings, all with the purpose of showing how bad the idea of a God is, and how unfashionable and harmful religion can be.
I started reading, expecting that the evidence will soon converge into a real decisive conclusion; it took me up to page 50 to realize that the author himself is not very sure.
The author classified human judgment about the existence of God along a spectrum scale from 1 to 7, one being for those who have a 100 per cent belief in the existence of God, and the seven is for those with total disbelief, he simply said "I count myself in category 6, but leaning toward 7", that translates into a 70% to an 85% degree of certainty, in other words he is not really sure about what he is trying to convince others with.
The book is not a serious scholarly study, nothing compared to what people like Norton Smith or Bart Ehrman did write, it may be read as an entertaining group of stories that carry no much weight other than the reflection of some "strong feelings" of a person who personally hates religion and can't stand the idea of a God.
Mr. Dawkins, after all that phenomenal "investigative" effort you are not completely sure, and you are still not able to sit comfortably in "category 7", don't stir all that dust, just try to do a better job in convincing yourself first.

An impressive effort in collecting all kinds of evidence, articles and sayings, all with the purpose of showing how bad the idea of a God is, and how unfashionable and harmful religion can be.
I started reading, expecting that the evidence will soon converge into a real decisive conclusion; it took me up to page 50 to realize that the author himself is not very sure.
The author classified human judgment about the existence of God along a spectrum scale from 1 to 7, one being for those who have a 100 per cent belief in the existence of God, and the seven is for those with total disbelief, he simply said "I count myself in category 6, but leaning toward 7", in other words he is not really sure about what he is trying to convince others with.
The book is not a serious scholarly study, nothing compared to what people like Norton Smith or Bart Ehrman did write, it may be read as an entertaining group of stories that carry no much weight other than the reflection of some "strong feelings" of a person who personally hates religion and can't stand the idea of a God.
Mr. Dawkins, after all that phenomenal "investigative" effort you are not completely sure, and you are still not able to sit comfortably in "category 7", don't stir all that dust, just try to do a better job in convincing yourself first.

I delayed in writing a review because so many already have. I have my church to thank for my curiosity in the published works of Richard Dawkins. I had not heard of him until he ticked off the elders with The God Delusion. Because of the hype and the explicit instructions not to read this book, I naturally looked it up, read the reviews, debated with myself, bought it, and read it. In some ways it is very unfortunate that this was the first Dawkins book I read. After chewing on God Delusion for awhile, I chose to read the Blind Watchmaker, Selfish Gene, & Extended Phenotype. The newbie who is rusty on science and just pushing away from fundamentalism, may find The God Delusion abrasive and harsh. It does not attempt to prove evolution as some of my church ministers claimed (they clearly had not read it and relied on Dr. Dawkins reputation as a Darwinist). I definitely recommend this book with the caution that the other three mentioned may be an easier place to start.