Excerpts from "The God Delusion"

[Orangutan]

Hopefully this isn't a repost.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5372458.stm
Enjoy.
:)

[Freethinker]

Even if it is, it bears reposting!

[elliotfc]

Hopefully this isn't a repost.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5372458.stm
Enjoy.
:)

I thought it was out next month, but I just ordered it from Amazon, cool!

Here are a few other reviews from Wikipedia.
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1878706,00.html
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7939629

-Elliot

[KingMerv00]

Looking good. On my list.

[Mashuna]

My copy's just been shipped by Amazon - special offer with a Dennett book

[Katana]

I thought that this was a funny description.

To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries.
He makes the Bible sound a little like the early version of Wikipedia.

[IllegalArgument]

Finished it last weekend.

It's good, Dawkins is in excellent form.

He completely destroys Stephen J Gould's NOMA idea. I love Gould but NOMA doesn't make sense,

NOMA = Non-overlaping magisteria

[CP489]

Dawkins has destroyed a lot of things so far...and I'm only halfway through.

Good book thus far, I like Dawkins' writing style, authoritative without being condescending. He uses mostly direct language (when possible), but also enjoys challenging the reader from time to time.

[Meadmaker]

I had to look up "non-overlapping magisteria", and found it here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

While I haven't read Dawkins' book, my guess is that the destruction of Gould's position is greatly exaggerated.

[scotth]

I had to look up "non-overlapping magisteria", and found it here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

While I haven't read Dawkins' book, my guess is that the destruction of Gould's position is greatly exaggerated.

Your guess is wrong.

IllegalArgument doesn't exaggerate in this instance. Not at all, and certainly not greatly.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/09/the_god_delusion.html

Numbers 8, 18, 19, 20, 28 etc, lots of 'critical' feedback....

[IllegalArgument]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/09/the_god_delusion.html

Numbers 8, 18, 19, 20, 28 etc, lots of 'critical' feedback....

I didn't read all the comments, most of the criticism is "he doesn't understand" without providing any specifics.

To be honest, comment section on that blog isn't going to be a good format for a detailed debate.

[elliotfc]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/09/the_god_delusion.html

Numbers 8, 18, 19, 20, 28 etc, lots of 'critical' feedback....

As opposed to the fawning feedback. Probably most of them, whatever the angle, haven't read the book yet. I'll have it read by the end of the weekend, assuming it shows up by Friday which it probably will. -Elliot

[Orangutan]

As opposed to the fawning feedback. Probably most of them, whatever the angle, haven't read the book yet. I'll have it read by the end of the weekend, assuming it shows up by Friday which it probably will. -Elliot

To be fair, They are mostly commenting on Contents of the Paxman Interview which was broadcast and not the book.

[elliotfc]

To be fair, They are mostly commenting on Contents of the Paxman Interview which was broadcast and not the book.

Oh. I see. I like Ms. Paxman better, the bow on her head and lipstick.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/09/the_god_delusion.html

Numbers 8, 18, 19, 20, 28 etc, lots of 'critical' feedback....

I think I almost prefer the BBC's old style where there was editorial control over comments they posted on the websites. If you believed they were being impartial in their role as journalists, then I thought they did quite a good job of pulling out the well constructed comments - both positive and negative to the story, and somewhere in between.

These days it is just a free for all, I think it devalues the site as it certainly doesn't add anything to the news stories.

But on the whole, there are a lot of areas on the bbc.co.uk site which now seem to be moving towards a free-for-all forum style.

Anyway, attempt to derail this thread over....

[CapelDodger]

He makes the Bible sound a little like the early version of Wikipedia.
A primitive version. Two different creation myths in the first few pages? Wikipedia is thousands of years more sophisticated than that. The technology has changed quite considerably as well. I'm still reluctant to quote Wiki as evidence, but happy to use it as a signpost.

My folks bought my nephew his first encyclopaedia one Xmas, and he said "Oh! Like Encarta in a book!". That was ten years ago, now it might well be "like Wiki ...". "Index" is what comes before ".html". It's a funny old world to oldies like me ... :)

[Orangutan]

Well, I found myself in Barnes & Noble's thie evening with a $50 gift card burning a hole in my wallet so I picked it up along with "Why people believe weird things" I have so many books piling up on my bedside table, these might jump to the front of the Queue though.

O.

[icantlogoff]

I really enjoyed the book, for someone like myself that had a firm belief in God upto just a couples of years ago, it is sometimes hard to find a decent explanation when talking to a Christian as to why I don't believe anymore. This book gave me a good solid base to be able to talk from.
Even if you leave the logical reasoning behind, the book still offer a wealth of information of what 'god' has ever done for anyone.

This was my first book, I then went ahead and ordered from amazon the selfish gene,Blindwatch maker, an a Ancestors tale.

regards

Steve