Reviews from Amazon

Reviews elsewhere on the web:

Richard Dawkins

The God Delusion

Richard Dawkins' arguments against religion are well known. The God Delusion is a collection of such arguments, with answers to many of his critics. Some people object to Dawkins' stance on religion, but he rejects the idea that arguing about religion is OK as long as you keep away from a list of taboos which you are not allowed to mention - this is strictly no-holds-barred. Thus he shows how horrible the message from religious scriptures would be if you took it all seriously, as well as speculating on how religious belief could have originated in the first place.

Dawkins claims that the book is an argument against religion in general, but I found that actually his arguments were chiefly against its more irrational forms. Arguments against those with more moderate beliefs seemed weak to me - the only one of substance being the effective support they give to the more extreme proponents. So if you are an atheist then you probably enjoy Dawkins arguments, but I feel that it is probably more important for those of you of a religious frame of mind to read it, to check whether you really identify yourself with the more ridiculous things done in the name of religion.

Amazon.com info

Hardcover 416 pages
ISBN: 0618680004
Salesrank: 13250
Weight:1.2 lbs

Published: 2006 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Amazon price $17.82

Marketplace:New from $12.48:Used from $4.99

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Hardcover 416 pages
ISBN: 0593055489
Salesrank: 19405
Weight:1.46 lbs

Published: 2006 Bantam Press

Marketplace::Used from £1.95

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Hardcover 416 pages
ISBN: 0618680004
Salesrank: 14325
Weight:1.2 lbs

Published: 2006 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Amazon price CDN$ 21.28

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 18.66:Used from CDN$ 11.17

Buy from Amazon.ca

Product Description
A preeminent scientist -- and the world's most prominent atheist -- asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11. With rigor and wit, Dawkins examines God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry, and abuses children, buttressing his points with historical and contemporary evidence. The God Delusion makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly. It also offers exhilarating insight into the advantages of atheism to the individual and society, not the least of which is a clearer, truer appreciation of the universe's wonders than any faith could ever muster.

Product Description

A preeminent scientist -- and the world's most prominent atheist -- asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.

With rigor and wit, Dawkins examines God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry, and abuses children, buttressing his points with historical and contemporary evidence. The God Delusion makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly. It also offers exhilarating insight into the advantages of atheism to the individual and society, not the least of which is a clearer, truer appreciation of the universe's wonders than any faith could ever muster.

Time to return to biology **
This is a book that obviously plugged directly into a high traffic port in the zeitgeist, and it's very difficult to get an objective opinion on it. Richard Dawkins articulates a forceful attack on 'religion' as a negative force in human intellectual development, something best left behind in favour of his particular brand of scientific secular humanism. I felt as though the were two men authoring this book. One is a learned, witty and passionate biologist who is totally absorbed with his field of study. The other is a strangely petulant fellow of the sort who will corner you at a party to deliver a monologue the evils of religion as he sees it. I think the success of this book portends that the former may be consumed by the latter, to the loss of the intellectual life of our era. The main weakness of the book is that outside his own field Dawkins is merely a dilettante. He has been informed of this, obviously, since the preface to my edition contains a statement to the effect that he doesn't need to learn about something of which there is nothing to learn - or that he can't be bothered reading much philosophy or theology because he doesn't think they refer to anything. Since it is the thesis of his book that they don't refer to anything, you feel that he should have taken the time to discern whether this was the case. In other parts, he makes superficial remarks about Biblical scholarship and sweeping generalisations about history that would not withstand any serious investigation. In a popular level book, we don't expect rigorous academic scholarship, but an acknowledgement of the limitations of such a work is in order, not a justification of it as though it doesn't matter. This may seem like a petty critique, but Dawkins is involved quite actively in disseminating his ideology and politics, and given the extreme nature of his views I think the public deserves better. I am very sympathetic to the emotional force behind the production of this book. I do believe that philosophical theism, as it has been embodied in various religious institutions, has many problems and has often been a destructive force in the lives of individuals and societies. To the extent that The God Delusion offers people a way out of this, it has done a worthwhile thing. But the world that Dawkins is inviting the reader into feels like a small and cramped corner of existence, full of self-righteousness and smug intellectual superiority, and with strangely totalitarian ambition. The wide open spaces of the soul are to be found somewhere else, I believe. This is a must-read because of its cultural relevance, not its content. In twenty years, deduct one star from my review.

Time to return to biology **

This is a book that obviously plugged directly into a high traffic port in the zeitgeist, and it's very difficult to get an objective opinion on it. Richard Dawkins articulates a forceful attack on 'religion' as a negative force in human intellectual development, something best left behind in favour of his particular brand of scientific secular humanism.

I felt as though the were two men authoring this book. One is a learned, witty and passionate biologist who is totally absorbed with his field of study. The other is a strangely petulant fellow of the sort who will corner you at a party to deliver a monologue the evils of religion as he sees it. I think the success of this book portends that the former may be consumed by the latter, to the loss of the intellectual life of our era.

The main weakness of the book is that outside his own field Dawkins is merely a dilettante. He has been informed of this, obviously, since the preface to my edition contains a statement to the effect that he doesn't need to learn about something of which there is nothing to learn - or that he can't be bothered reading much philosophy or theology because he doesn't think they refer to anything. Since it is the thesis of his book that they don't refer to anything, you feel that he should have taken the time to discern whether this was the case. In other parts, he makes superficial remarks about Biblical scholarship and sweeping generalisations about history that would not withstand any serious investigation. In a popular level book, we don't expect rigorous academic scholarship, but an acknowledgement of the limitations of such a work is in order, not a justification of it as though it doesn't matter. This may seem like a petty critique, but Dawkins is involved quite actively in disseminating his ideology and politics, and given the extreme nature of his views I think the public deserves better.

I am very sympathetic to the emotional force behind the production of this book. I do believe that philosophical theism, as it has been embodied in various religious institutions, has many problems and has often been a destructive force in the lives of individuals and societies. To the extent that The God Delusion offers people a way out of this, it has done a worthwhile thing. But the world that Dawkins is inviting the reader into feels like a small and cramped corner of existence, full of self-righteousness and smug intellectual superiority, and with strangely totalitarian ambition. The wide open spaces of the soul are to be found somewhere else, I believe.

This is a must-read because of its cultural relevance, not its content. In twenty years, deduct one star from my review.

Brilliant *****
This is an eminently cogent and brave book. Dawkins reasoning and arguments are brilliant, his style eloquent and warm. He gives a solid foundation for the improbability of a Creator Deity, the considerable harms caused by Religion and Theism, and the possibility and desireability of living a fulfilled, meaningful secular life.

Brilliant *****

This is an eminently cogent and brave book. Dawkins reasoning and arguments are brilliant, his style eloquent and warm. He gives a solid foundation for the improbability of a Creator Deity, the considerable harms caused by Religion and Theism, and the possibility and desireability of living a fulfilled, meaningful secular life.

Disappointing Dawkins **
I have purchased quite a few of Dawkins books, and actually share his convictions and understand where he comes from in his anti-creationist attitude. That however does not excuse this effort. I felt the book was cobbled together, and did not flow particularly well. He recycled arguments continuously, and even used arguments from other authors (many generations before his time) that were put nowhere near as succinctly as in their original form. Apologies Richard, but this book diminished your brand rather significantly.

Disappointing Dawkins **

I have purchased quite a few of Dawkins books, and actually share his convictions and understand where he comes from in his anti-creationist attitude. That however does not excuse this effort. I felt the book was cobbled together, and did not flow particularly well. He recycled arguments continuously, and even used arguments from other authors (many generations before his time) that were put nowhere near as succinctly as in their original form. Apologies Richard, but this book diminished your brand rather significantly.

The nonsense of evolution *
. The evolution theory disproves itself making it junk science. If a cell evolved out of mud, primordial ooze, or whatever -- what is the driving force for it to want to reproduce? and what is the force driving it to want to evolve? Without this driving force, it would simply exist and eventually die off not caring if it reproduced or evolved or not. Consequently, the theory of evolution requires the existence of God (the "driving force") and with the existence of God, it makes evolution unnecessary. I believe everyone should study the theory of evolution since it is widely taught although they should also be taught the downfalls of such unproven false theories as well. It is important to study all sides of an issue in order to make informed opinions. Why do those who believe in evolution feel so threatened with studying creationism? - because they know their evolution theory has so many holes and that they do not want to admit the existence of God? (because if they did admit God exists, they know they are accountable to Him) Without a "driving force" (IE: God), evolution would never happen. Why is it no evolutionst I have ever asked for an explanation of this "driving force" has even attempted to answer what the "driving force" is??? Are we suppose to believe the one celled organism (apparently evolving into a one celled organism with all reproductive organs present) decided it had to reproduce (or evolve) so it could one day become a human??? If evolution was real, the cell would have simply existed and died off and nobody would have ever known. There is absolutely no sense to evolution and it cannot be explained scientifically. .

The nonsense of evolution *

.
The evolution theory disproves itself making it junk science.

If a cell evolved out of mud, primordial ooze, or whatever -- what is the driving force for it to want to reproduce? and what is the force driving it to want to evolve? Without this driving force, it would simply exist and eventually die off not caring if it reproduced or evolved or not. Consequently, the theory of evolution requires the existence of God (the "driving force") and with the existence of God, it makes evolution unnecessary.

I believe everyone should study the theory of evolution since it is widely taught although they should also be taught the downfalls of such unproven false theories as well. It is important to study all sides of an issue in order to make informed opinions.

Why do those who believe in evolution feel so threatened with studying creationism? - because they know their evolution theory has so many holes and that they do not want to admit the existence of God? (because if they did admit God exists, they know they are accountable to Him)

Without a "driving force" (IE: God), evolution would never happen. Why is it no evolutionst I have ever asked for an explanation of this "driving force" has even attempted to answer what the "driving force" is??? Are we suppose to believe the one celled organism (apparently evolving into a one celled organism with all reproductive organs present) decided it had to reproduce (or evolve) so it could one day become a human??? If evolution was real, the cell would have simply existed and died off and nobody would have ever known. There is absolutely no sense to evolution and it cannot be explained scientifically.
.

exceptional book *****
Dawkins presents a clear, readable treatise on the case against religion. His arguments are powerful, and backed up with science wherever available. His style is detailed yet succinct. A knock-down blow against faith. If you open this book hoping to prove Dawkins wrong, you really are missing the point.

exceptional book *****

Dawkins presents a clear, readable treatise on the case against religion. His arguments are powerful, and backed up with science wherever available. His style is detailed yet succinct. A knock-down blow against faith. If you open this book hoping to prove Dawkins wrong, you really are missing the point.

Is this our new God? ***
What Darwin, sorry Dawkins, lacks in religious belief he certainly makes up for with a holier-than-thou egotism sufficient to make even the staunchest athiest beg for salvation. By and large the science is factually correct and even interesting in places, but the evidence is overstated and simply used for a cold and calculating dissection of a small subset of Christianity with over-emphasis on the Creation vs Evolution debate (yawn). He seems to have no tolerance for any form of religious belief, and no respect for those who wish to follow that path in their lives. As such, I find it difficult to recommend except possibly as a kind of 'athiest bible' used to mount some kind of defense in doorstep discussions with equally narrow minded religious zealots.

Is this our new God? ***

What Darwin, sorry Dawkins, lacks in religious belief he certainly makes up for with a holier-than-thou egotism sufficient to make even the staunchest athiest beg for salvation. By and large the science is factually correct and even interesting in places, but the evidence is overstated and simply used for a cold and calculating dissection of a small subset of Christianity with over-emphasis on the Creation vs Evolution debate (yawn). He seems to have no tolerance for any form of religious belief, and no respect for those who wish to follow that path in their lives. As such, I find it difficult to recommend except possibly as a kind of 'athiest bible' used to mount some kind of defense in doorstep discussions with equally narrow minded religious zealots.

It's ok ***
This book provides a persuasive blow of propaganda. I have to find myself mostly agreeing with it; however Dawkins argues well out of his depth every time he treads away from his safe biological waters. His knowledge of history, philosophy and sociology must be better than this book suggests. But this book is not for people who have in depth knowledges into these areas, it's for people who are already critical of religion and who would like to read a book that supports their view. This brings almost nothing new to the debate of religion versus secularism, and a historian or political student could knock over Dawkins' examples of religions at war with no effort. And it seems that at times Dawkins takes his biological debates into a direction simply to tell us again how stupid religious people are. In many of these cases, had he taken his arguement one step further then he would have demonstrate that non religious are no better. One example of this is when he explains our desire to follow religion as a defunkt, dangerous relic like the moth's desire to fly into a flame. I'm not sure if irony is lost on Dawkins but he then fails to mention how this same part of the brain that might cause one to follow religion is likely to be the same part that makes us follow communism, fascism, global warming or even Dawkins himself without question.

It's ok ***

This book provides a persuasive blow of propaganda. I have to find myself mostly agreeing with it; however Dawkins argues well out of his depth every time he treads away from his safe biological waters. His knowledge of history, philosophy and sociology must be better than this book suggests. But this book is not for people who have in depth knowledges into these areas, it's for people who are already critical of religion and who would like to read a book that supports their view.

This brings almost nothing new to the debate of religion versus secularism, and a historian or political student could knock over Dawkins' examples of religions at war with no effort.

And it seems that at times Dawkins takes his biological debates into a direction simply to tell us again how stupid religious people are. In many of these cases, had he taken his arguement one step further then he would have demonstrate that non religious are no better. One example of this is when he explains our desire to follow religion as a defunkt, dangerous relic like the moth's desire to fly into a flame. I'm not sure if irony is lost on Dawkins but he then fails to mention how this same part of the brain that might cause one to follow religion is likely to be the same part that makes us follow communism, fascism, global warming or even Dawkins himself without question.

My Bible *****
This book does away with all doubt the idea of a God and reduces religion of all types to the equivalent of believing in leprechauns.

My Bible *****

This book does away with all doubt the idea of a God and reduces religion of all types to the equivalent of believing in leprechauns.

Read this to be cured of Religion *****
This book is the written equivalent of a slam dunk, a hole in one and a bulls eye. It is exquisitely sharply written. It takes all the old saws that the anti-atheists keep on trotting out, over and over again, and expertly slices them to ribbons, with a wry smile and a chuckle. Once you have read this, your only reason to keep any religious feelings you might have had is that you ignored every word he wrote. One thing it does, that other similar books have failed to do, is to bring out the beauty and elegance of the alternative to a created universe. We do not live in a dry, drab, boring and uninspiring world. Most other atheist works of this kind fail to illustrate the beauty and awe of the scientific argument. This book does so and so closes the last door for the religiously inclined. There is no need to believe in a God to appreciate the wonder of the natural world. Just study how it really came to be and you will experience a wonder that far outpaces the most energetic of evangelicals.

Read this to be cured of Religion *****

This book is the written equivalent of a slam dunk, a hole in one and a bulls eye. It is exquisitely sharply written. It takes all the old saws that the anti-atheists keep on trotting out, over and over again, and expertly slices them to ribbons, with a wry smile and a chuckle. Once you have read this, your only reason to keep any religious feelings you might have had is that you ignored every word he wrote.

One thing it does, that other similar books have failed to do, is to bring out the beauty and elegance of the alternative to a created universe. We do not live in a dry, drab, boring and uninspiring world. Most other atheist works of this kind fail to illustrate the beauty and awe of the scientific argument. This book does so and so closes the last door for the religiously inclined. There is no need to believe in a God to appreciate the wonder of the natural world. Just study how it really came to be and you will experience a wonder that far outpaces the most energetic of evangelicals.

what a load of twaddle *
first things first there are three things which i feel i need to make clear. 1 i am a christian. 2 i believe like richard dawkins in evolution. 3 i have no problem with atheists or agnostics-i have many friends from outside the christian circle. richard dawkins attempts to use evolution vs creation to prove that there isn't a god and fails miserably. i gave this book a one start review, and believe me if i could have given it less i damn well would have. there is documentary evidence to prove that well before the days of darwin people within the church were looking for proper answers to the story of the human race as it has always been accepted within the christian community that the whole point of the genesis chapter in the bible was the moral of the story ie about disobeying the word of god. any one with any knowledge of the bible knows that. being a christian is about believing that jesus died on the cross for our sins, a concept that dawkins failed singularly to grasp. astonishingly he also fails to grasp the difference between believing in god and organised religion-something thats a massive difference tat even my two year old nephew can understand. richard dawkins has proven himself unworthy of his job title as professor in that he shows a clear lack of intellect or research in to the subject that he is writing about and worthy of it in that he demonstrates himself to be arrogant and unworldly. any one who admits that they don't read the work of chrisitan scientists because he beieves it to be prejudiced, well sorry mate, but an old expression about the pot and the kettle springs to mind. in doing that he has proven himself to be what he believes them to be-small minded and ignorant and add thick in to the bargain as well

what a load of twaddle *

first things first there are three things which i feel i need to make clear. 1 i am a christian. 2 i believe like richard dawkins in evolution. 3 i have no problem with atheists or agnostics-i have many friends from outside the christian circle. richard dawkins attempts to use evolution vs creation to prove that there isn't a god and fails miserably. i gave this book a one start review, and believe me if i could have given it less i damn well would have. there is documentary evidence to prove that well before the days of darwin people within the church were looking for proper answers to the story of the human race as it has always been accepted within the christian community that the whole point of the genesis chapter in the bible was the moral of the story ie about disobeying the word of god. any one with any knowledge of the bible knows that. being a christian is about believing that jesus died on the cross for our sins, a concept that dawkins failed singularly to grasp. astonishingly he also fails to grasp the difference between believing in god and organised religion-something thats a massive difference tat even my two year old nephew can understand. richard dawkins has proven himself unworthy of his job title as professor in that he shows a clear lack of intellect or research in to the subject that he is writing about and worthy of it in that he demonstrates himself to be arrogant and unworldly. any one who admits that they don't read the work of chrisitan scientists because he beieves it to be prejudiced, well sorry mate, but an old expression about the pot and the kettle springs to mind. in doing that he has proven himself to be what he believes them to be-small minded and ignorant and add thick in to the bargain as well

Dawkins tells us why he hates God ***
This book makes more sense as a diatribe and a hate letter to God than it does as an argument against God's existence. Read the book in that context and it will all become clear to you. Contradiction and poor argument don't matter when your main goal is to spew venom against God and explain why you're taking revenge on the Supreme Being by not believing in him. Dawkins should stick to writing about science. Philosophy and religion are beyond him.

Dawkins tells us why he hates God ***

This book makes more sense as a diatribe and a hate letter to God than it does as an argument against God's existence. Read the book in that context and it will all become clear to you. Contradiction and poor argument don't matter when your main goal is to spew venom against God and explain why you're taking revenge on the Supreme Being by not believing in him.

Dawkins should stick to writing about science. Philosophy and religion are beyond him.

A book panderer *
The guy seems to be selling books and I guess that's really all he's interested in, now if you want to really get into brain food reach for Hitchens. Dawkins really doesn't unearth new arguments just vilifies traditions that seem to grate him. Yep a book panderer that about sums it up.

A book panderer *

The guy seems to be selling books and I guess that's really all he's interested in, now if you want to really get into brain food reach for Hitchens. Dawkins really doesn't unearth new arguments just vilifies traditions that seem to grate him. Yep a book panderer that about sums it up.

Dawkins Contradicts His Own Book!! *
Richard Dawkins has recently admitted that he must reject the notion of evil! You may ask, "Wasn't the BBC documentary that was based on his book, where he asserted the sordidness of religion, called 'The Root of All Evil'?" And if you are an astute reader you might ask, "Isn't Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion' a exhortation on why religion is evil?" However, to the truly astute reader this should not come as a very big surprise. Aside from committing almost every logical fallacy and littering the pages with manipulated quotations, Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion' is a weak and exasperating red-herring. To any knowledgable person wishing to understand reasonable worldviews, this book is an utter disappointment; indeed, Dawkins commits more time and effort summarizing (briefly, I might add) philosophical ideas than he does actually critiquing them. It isn't unreasonable to venture that Dawkins' understanding of these issues is as limited as his summaries. A perfect example of Dawkins' limited reasoning skills is found in the chapter he devotes to morality. He quotes Ivan Karamazov's famous revelation from Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov' where he says, "Without God, everything is permissable." Horribly construing the real meaning of this quote (which can be known in it's context), Dawkins proceeds to claim that Dostoevsky saw humans as brutal animals, who, without a God, would visciously commit all sorts of evils. And Dawkins calls religious people ignorant! I feel compelled to aid Dostoevsky in this rape of his masterpiece. Ivan Karamazov's enlightening moment was not the result of such a superficial thought; rather, he was reflecting upon the problem that, without God, there is absolutely nothing reasonable on which to ground morality, no reason whatsoever one should act in any certain way. These famous words shake the very foundation of Dawkins book. What can Dawkins view as "evil" if there is no God? From whence has this "moral law" come, that we may know what is "good" and what is "evil"; what is more, why should one act in accordance with "good" rather than "evil?" In 'The God Delusion' Dawkins wonders why certain people say that scientists should not enter into the field of religion. I would say that Dawkins shouldn't enter into philosophy or religion; he simply does not have the mental capacity. It is perplexing that such a book can affect such media attention and gain a review higher than one star. Indeed, why is it that this book has gained more media attention than the some twenty books that have been written reproaching Dawkins? I say to the atheist, be consistent. Be a consistent atheist (not necessarily wise) like Nietzche or Camus, who understood the implications of their claims; that is, without God, life is devoid of meaning and morality. Do not be mislead by this giant contradiction.

Dawkins Contradicts His Own Book!! *

Richard Dawkins has recently admitted that he must reject the notion of evil! You may ask, "Wasn't the BBC documentary that was based on his book, where he asserted the sordidness of religion, called 'The Root of All Evil'?" And if you are an astute reader you might ask, "Isn't Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion' a exhortation on why religion is evil?" However, to the truly astute reader this should not come as a very big surprise.

Aside from committing almost every logical fallacy and littering the pages with manipulated quotations, Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion' is a weak and exasperating red-herring. To any knowledgable person wishing to understand reasonable worldviews, this book is an utter disappointment; indeed, Dawkins commits more time and effort summarizing (briefly, I might add) philosophical ideas than he does actually critiquing them. It isn't unreasonable to venture that Dawkins' understanding of these issues is as limited as his summaries. A perfect example of Dawkins' limited reasoning skills is found in the chapter he devotes to morality. He quotes Ivan Karamazov's famous revelation from Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov' where he says, "Without God, everything is permissable." Horribly construing the real meaning of this quote (which can be known in it's context), Dawkins proceeds to claim that Dostoevsky saw humans as brutal animals, who, without a God, would visciously commit all sorts of evils. And Dawkins calls religious people ignorant! I feel compelled to aid Dostoevsky in this rape of his masterpiece. Ivan Karamazov's enlightening moment was not the result of such a superficial thought; rather, he was reflecting upon the problem that, without God, there is absolutely nothing reasonable on which to ground morality, no reason whatsoever one should act in any certain way. These famous words shake the very foundation of Dawkins book. What can Dawkins view as "evil" if there is no God? From whence has this "moral law" come, that we may know what is "good" and what is "evil"; what is more, why should one act in accordance with "good" rather than "evil?" In 'The God Delusion' Dawkins wonders why certain people say that scientists should not enter into the field of religion. I would say that Dawkins shouldn't enter into philosophy or religion; he simply does not have the mental capacity.

It is perplexing that such a book can affect such media attention and gain a review higher than one star. Indeed, why is it that this book has gained more media attention than the some twenty books that have been written reproaching Dawkins?

I say to the atheist, be consistent. Be a consistent atheist (not necessarily wise) like Nietzche or Camus, who understood the implications of their claims; that is, without God, life is devoid of meaning and morality. Do not be mislead by this giant contradiction.

Not a science book ***
I only want to state that I am constantly frustrated with seeing this book in science sections of book stores. This is not a science book, it is an opinion work that really should be in either the religion section (as it is his beliefs and support for those beliefs) or in the philosophy section. Atheism is not synonomous with scientific thinking. A true science work tries to be unbiased, while this one has a clear agenda from the start.

Not a science book ***

I only want to state that I am constantly frustrated with seeing this book in science sections of book stores. This is not a science book, it is an opinion work that really should be in either the religion section (as it is his beliefs and support for those beliefs) or in the philosophy section. Atheism is not synonomous with scientific thinking. A true science work tries to be unbiased, while this one has a clear agenda from the start.

Must Read *****
This is a book everyone should read . If you are religious,non religious, if you are a firm believer in God or if you have no belief at all, this is a book everyone should read. It is beautifully written,enlightening and at times amusing. Once you start reading you will not want to put this book down.

Must Read *****

This is a book everyone should read .
If you are religious,non religious,
if you are a firm believer in God or
if you have no belief at all,
this is a book everyone should read.
It is beautifully written,enlightening and at times amusing.
Once you start reading you will not want to put this book down.