Flamed Diving wrote: » Read 'God is not Great' by Hitchens. Much better.
The Mad Hatter wrote: » I'm thinking of picking up TGD as an audiobook but just wondering if it's worth my while? Is it really mainly for people who are religious? Will it just tell me stuff I already know?
The Mad Hatter wrote: » Thanks for all the input, folks. I think I will pick it up, if only to insulate myself should another creationism vs. evolution debate break out over Christmas dinner. (Wish I was making that up - my family are not creationists; they're not even especially religious, but I was utterly unable to get my points across.)
Galvasean wrote: » Ergo, you are faulty.
Osgoodisgood wrote: » I own both books and haven't finished either of them. Not because I don't agree with the contents, but rather because I agree with every word. For these books to have relevance, or better yet, for them to be compelling, I think you need to have some semblance of doubt about the hard atheist's position.
equivariant wrote: » I disagree. I think that Hitchens is a more entertaining debater and is more confrontational than Dawkins and also much wittier. However as an argument for atheism and even as an argument against religion I find TGD more convincing than GING
My main problem with it was that Dawkins was (it seemed to me) more preoccupied with ramming his opinion down your throat. He's already given me the evidence, I can figure it out myself Dickie... anyone else get that?
Flamed Diving wrote: » Well, I'm not an atheist, and I certainly disagree with the hard atheist position. In addition, Dawkins has stated countless times that he is 99.99999% sure that god/s doesn't exist. Is he a hard atheist? .
Malty_T wrote: » I don't think anyone can ever be a pure atheist, simply because of the fear religion can instill subconsciously in the mind. Most of us, will always have hesitations, but one thing Dawkins (and I'm sure most of us here) is (are) certain of is that the God(s) depicted in the ancient texts are complete and utter drivel.
andy1249 wrote: » The God delusion is the sad nail in the coffin of what could have been a brilliant career , its very like watching David Icke crack up all those years ago, sad really.
Zillah wrote: » I can't disagree enough. To compare Richard Dawkins to David Icke is just so monumentally wrong, I can't believe someone would be so ignorant. He has had a long and illustrious career, doing things far beyond publishing books. He's also about to publish a book detailing the best evidence for evolution soon, so his career is by no means over, either.
He's also about to publish a book detailing the best evidence for evolution soon, so his career is by no means over, either.
andy1249 wrote: » The book is clearly aimed at the religious
andy1249 wrote: » The only possible reason I can see for this book is to get him some more TV slots and inflate his already overblown ego.
andy1249 wrote: » His career as a scientist is over. He would rather spend his time these days arguing nonsense out in public. Do you really think science needs a book detailing the " Best Evidence" for Evolution ? Who exactly do you think this book is for ? Anyone even remotely read up on the subject either through pop science or serious study does not need Dawkins to tell them the " Best evidence ever ". Honestly the way hes behaving its like hes just discovered Evolution and is trying to convince the world !! Its ridiculous ! The book is clearly aimed at the religious , which is a complete waste of time , it cannot possibly be aimed at the scientific community because it is totally unnecessary , in other words a complete waste of the mans talents. Its worthless work ! The only possible reason I can see for this book is to get him some more TV slots and inflate his already overblown ego.
CerebralCortex wrote: » Knowledge of Evolutionary biology before I read Dawkins Selfish Gene = 0 Knowledge of Evolutionary biology after I read Dawkins Selfish Gene = 80% increase.
Well, I'm not an atheist, and I certainly disagree with the hard atheist position. In addition, Dawkins has stated countless times that he is 99.99999% sure that god/s doesn't exist. Is he a hard atheist?
Furthermore, Hitchens is not attempting to convince people that god/s doesn't exist in his book. Hint: the clue is in the title.
I find TGD a bit overly simplistic and watered down. It's clearly written for the lowest common denominator/broadest audience.
Galvasean wrote: » 80% of 0 = 0. 0 + 0(80% of 0) = 0. You learned nothing?
Osgoodisgood wrote: » Pretty close I'd say. What's your point? .
Osgoodisgood wrote: » Not sure if I buy that. Anyway, what's your point?.
Osgoodisgood wrote: » Why do you think that? It's Dawkins' opinion. He offers it in a style that some find annoying but I hardly think he is pandering to the uneducated.
Flamed Diving wrote: » Pretty close to first, is second place. He is not a hard atheist. Therefore all definitions of him as such should be dropped. Whats your point? Oh boy. I am not going to be goaded into some peurile tit for tat. I didn't call Dawkins a hard atheist. Go read my post again. Well, he pretty much states exactly that in his book. Whats your point? Hitchens makes no attempt to conceal his opinion vis-a-vis the likelihood of a deity existing. Because I have read both books and I was left with the impression that one was consdierably more intellectually advanced and narrowly focused than the other. Whats your point? Congratulations. You've read two books. Don't stop now.
Pretty close to first, is second place. He is not a hard atheist. Therefore all definitions of him as such should be dropped. Whats your point?
Well, he pretty much states exactly that in his book. Whats your point?
Because I have read both books and I was left with the impression that one was consdierably more intellectually advanced and narrowly focused than the other. Whats your point?
Osgoodisgood wrote: » Hitchens makes no attempt to conceal his opinion vis-a-vis the likelihood of a deity existing.
