Just finished reading The God Delusion... is it me or...?

Meh. I've never needed anyone to tell me how to not believe a claim that offers no supporting evidence. I've never read anything by him but his opinions on it are at least as valid as anyone else's.

I can't imagine the book being for atheists anyway.

In my opinion (read: OPINION),

Dawkin's moral arguments are spot on, as far as civilized human beings ought to be concerned.

For instance, God sanctions the institution of slavery (albeit in a regulated, but still persistent form), the genocide of Amalekites, and the selling of ones daughter in the Bible. So, he doesn't come down to hard on these ethically abhorrent behaviors...And yet, he takes time out to punish things that we, as modern human beings, would find trivial. He condemns wearing clothing of mixed fibers (Lev. 19:19), gathering sticks on the Sabbath (which is a sin worthy of death!) in Numbers 15:32... And yet doesn't take the time out to ban slavery, advocate a democratic form of government, basic human rights, gender equality, or make a firm statement against racism... And thus we find the "Word" of God being used by the Klan, the Christian Identity Movement, Black Hebrew Israelites, and other racially-motivated loonies... So yeah, from a moral standpoint, the Bible, in context, is not really suitable as an ethical guide. On this, I agree with Dawkins.

I think dawkin's arguments in that book are more philisophical and less "scientific".

he mentions scientific evidence but does not specifically go into detail in that either-

its pretty easy for the reader to track downt he mountains of evidence in support of the theory of evolution or the big bang.

from my recollection (it was a while that i read that book)- he doesn't cite bible verse at all- merely general beliefs, he doesn't pick apart particular sayings or verses merely concepts of god.

I think his philisophical arguments are well-thought out, but his methods for convincing people are for the most part, as subtle as a sledge hammer to a newborn baby's skull. what he has in intellect, he lacks in understanding of the human psyche and its willingness to give up its fairy tales.

what i did like about the book was that it took common understanding- my understandings a step further philisophically- beyond "why do people follow religion" from simple "fear" or personal need for a security blanket, as the rational normal and proven answer to - well "why do those people let it control us?"

his arguments about as science discovers more- god has less places to "hide" is very relevant and not really his- this is the common thinking long before he or i or you were born and part of the reason that thelogists fear science.

EDIT: actually- that is YOUR desire to read into arguments involving evolving morality- from my recollection- dawkins makes it quite clear that there is a consent factor-

animals and children are incapable of consent- you are supposed to draw that conclusion as it is basically common sense and ingrained as a concept in all civilized society.

these are typical comments of a "slippery slope" that christians love to throw into gay marraige arguments- again those type of arguments fail as any society can put rational stop-gaps with a CLEAR line drawn at a certain point- this is the consent argument which is pretty much common sense.

at least i applaud you for having the sense to read the book and at least educate yourself which is more than i can say for most theists.

this answer is more geared to MWs' response.

If MW would actually take the time to read the scriptures that he is quoting, he would see the context that those passages are in. If he would also take the time to read the rest of the bible, he would begin to have an understanding of the very God that breathed life into his very existence

I'm an admirer of Dawkins as a scientist and as a popularizer of science and I thought that "The God Delusion" was an almost complete turkey.

I just saw the rebuttal of Antony Flew to Dawkins in the latest issue of First Things. Dawkins seems like a liar trading on his credentials. Flew was a great guy to Dawkins until he dared to disagree. I find Dawkins a reprehensible person. That is just me.

I've never read that book but some people say he makes good arguments in there about the non-existence of God.

Dawkins' argument against God is significantly stronger than your argument against Dawkins.

More than likely it's just you because you are trying desperately to find fault with it due to your heavily religious bias. Dawkins is a genius in my opinion and one of the many people i look up to in this world.

The way I see it, all morality came from man but it was attributed to a god in order to make those values "absolute".