no, quite the opposite. Since his writing style is so drab, boring and juvenile, I am touched to laugh at how people absolutely ignorant to science actually believe that dude knows anything about anything. Saint Augustine gives better, more substantive arguments for atheism, and he is a Patristic theologian! I am just waiting for a real scientist to offer a real book arguing for atheism based on actual science rather than sensationalism

There's that nerve being touched again.:o

Seriously though, as I've said before, our understanding of the development of superstition in human evolution has increased greatly recently and it's a fascinating subject.

agreed, but for the opposite reasons I think you are implying. when I first read Dawkins I was excited, it was quite popular and critically acclaimed, people were saying it was life changing..

then I read it. No science, no data, no facts, no substance, just needlessly emotive fallacies and irrelevant griping. His books read more like the pissed off rantings of a 15year old's blog post

There are certainly better written and more entertaining books on the subject of the superstition we call religion. On that we can probably agree. Dawkins' arguments are accurate but indeed very basic.

When it comes to Charles Stanely or Paula White than I agree with completely but otherwise you obviously haven't read any good books on religion. And no, Dawkin's arguments are far from accurate, that is precisely my beef with him. It is not that he tries to discredit theology, no that is fine, it because he absolutely fails to do such with any accurate arguments. He uses nothing but straw man and red herring fallacies, he rarely tackles the crux of the issues head on. For example, he says that God(s) are just human anthropomorphic creations from our collective imagination, which may be true, but he just leaves it there, no evidence or documentation. He doesn't use any science or data to support this, which he could. He could just the general rules of Mechanics to point out how the Muliverse doesn't exactly operate in a way which our religions describe, and in fact suggest a randomness. Further, he could add psychological research data which points out that humans inherently seek meaning and pattern behind EVERYTHING they perceive/conceive of, and that God(s) are just a continuation of that naturally human trait. Humans look for meaning behind every rustling bush, and we inevitably draw up the conclusion that it is God(s) and this very well may be simple anthropomorphizing of otherwise natural or coincidental events. If a sophomore English student turned in an essay with the verbatim arguments I would give him a C+ for effort but ask him to elaborate and dig deeper..
Of course conversely, deep theologians argue the opposite, that the inherent and instinctive search for meaning by humans is precisely there to find God(s) in the first place, instilled in us from Creation just as hunger is a natural drive for food, this human curiousness for meaning is a hunger for the Divine. Without necessarily agreeing with either perspective, surely we can criticize the shallowness of Dawkin's argument ;)

my beef is not Dawkins, but rather that so many people acclaim his poor writing as if it were actually good writing. I do not criticize the context or subject he is arguing, rather I am criticizing his otherwise poor writing style. It is a shame really, quite a waste. I have read his published scientific papers so I know he knows how to write, he just opted not to with these muckraker collections

Project for a Revolution in New York - Alain Robbe-Grillet

next will be Robbe-Grillet's Topology of a Phantom City

Le Voyeur is one of all time favorite scary books, I also like Jealousy and In the Labyrinth.

Regarding Dawkins, the arguments against the existence of gawd are pretty basic, but the lumpen pays so little attention to reality and logic that his books are necessary. I didn't read them more than once, so I don't suppose they, like many other books, bear a lot of deep scrutiny. so, in other words, the arguments against Dawkins I'm reading here are a lot less to the point than his vs the big white beard in the sky fellow, or whatever your silly image is of the creator...

yeah, it's a good one. Also Journey to the End of the Nuit is well worth your time.

both of these are absolutely essential reads...I translated one of his interviews once, it helps to understand his desire for delirium. He hates pretty much everyone.

currently finishing Gunsights by Elmore Leonard, one of his westerns.

Very much enjoyed last week The Tourist by Olen Steinhauer, a ripping page turner, spy novel, but with the clarity of Graham Greene.

Over the weekend, read Hollywood Hills by Joseph Wambaugh, a sympathetic cop book I don't find offensive.

currently reading Invitation to aa beheading by vladimir nobokov.

Might do the job you're after. It'd be a bit tl;dr to explain, but PM me if you want more info.

I tend to agree about Dawkins. I feel that the subtext of his general epistemology is that everything ought to be contained by a narrow but ill-defined notion of empiricism. If he was Popperian I could square it; as it is, I'm not sure if what he's actually proposing that his proofs ought to be applied everywhere; by which token, there's no art and very little exploratory science... ironically, I suspect we'd return to some pre-Cartesian but Godless dark ages by my (admittedly rash) understanding of Dawkins.

Having said that, he does propose some very tricky questions for particular forms of Theology (think: Daniel Strange) which purport to argue for trans-historico-cosmological absolutisms to a given religio-cultural narrative.

Does anyone know if any of the New Atheists have written about John Hick?

Oh, also - Hitchens is fine; I merely disagree with his version of atheism, and he's generally a great writer. Dawkins is a cunt.

more urgent than philosophy! a fucking life-saver.

and for fun:




it's free on the kindle reader (you don't need an actual kindle). free on project gutenberg too but the kindle reader looks way better.

rouges gallery for shit sure. Surprised Cthulhu not on the cover as well.... How's the book?

Finished "Au-delà de l'avenue D" by Philippe Marcadé.
No translation to English yet as far as I know.
Quite interesting and fresh, Marcadé went to the US, met Johnny Thunders with a friend, talked about the sauce on your pasta, befriended Thunders, got a band together, played Max's, CBGB's, Irving Plaza, played drums for Gang War a short while, met Sid and Nancy, slid into drug addiction, saw friends OD, die from AIDS...
It's lively, humble, he laughs at himself without having it looking like a pose. Quite good. Except for the spelling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2-f_...eature=related

This.

Currently in the weird position of reading several books at once.

Blood Meridian (Cormac Mccormack) - Been wanting to read this ever since Dylan C. mentioned it as being an inspiration for Hex. Makes sense. An incredibly dark/fucked up portrayal of Old West, USA...but also, completely beautiful. Sodomizing savages and blood and miles of empty landscape.

Queer (William B.) - Only a few pages in, so no solid opinion this far. Reads much like Junky only desperate in different ways.