How many have read it, and by what standard do you hold it?

Probably the most fascinating portion of Dawkin's book that I found was that Moderate religion is far more dangerous that Extremist religion. Why? Religious moderates make the world safe for fundamentalists, by promoting faith as a virtue and by enforcing an overly pious respect for religion.

Its a fascinating view to see the religious indoctrination of children as a form of child abuse. Children should not be labeled by their parents' religion. Terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people flinch. Odd though it may seem for a child to already have such a firm and understanding grip of ideal on the universe and whats around them.

To define as such, the God hypothesis, Yahweh (Elohim or God if you prefer) of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

you know, that would make much more sense if you could provide examples.

Sounds like an interesting book.

I haven't read it, but do agree that religious indoctrination is child abuse. I don't think organized religion is really designed to help kids at all, but rather is designed to cripple them. Religion then sells a crutch (at a 10% tax for example).

The Fall of Man - Curse the woman for her misdeeds, and bless her with the pain of childbirth. "I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children,yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." Mysogyny.

Sodom and Gomorrah - Whole cities destroyed utterly without descrepency of life contained there in (save Lot and his various wives, one of which was turned into a pillar of salt). In the fall of Sodom its stated more than once that man lies with man, thus God's wrath upon it. Dont be Gay, or God will strike your city down with fire and Brimstone. Homophobic.

Noah and the Ark - Genocide of all life on earth, accept for a few acceptable people and 2 of every non sentient animal into a large boat. Bloodthirsty Ethnic Cleansing. Unforgiving Control Freak. Genocidal.

Ten Plagues - Rivers Run red with Blood. Plagues of Reptiles, Locusts, Lice, Insects. Disease on all living things not human. Hail raining fire. The death of all Egyptian First born, innocent or not.
Ethnic Cleansing. Control Freak. Genocidal. Racist. Infanticidal. Pestilential.

Just what I can rattle off without having a copy of the KJV in my hands.

I've read it, and was unimpressed.

Dawkins is a good scientist (or at least a good popular science author), but his understanding, and even knowledge of philosophy is highly limited. I read many philosophers, and have taken several classes on the subject, and there are many arguments against the existence of God (as well as for), but none of them are mentioned by Dawkins. The only argument that he seems to be using is the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, which I see as a very weak strawman argument: it does disprove the existence of deities like Zeus and Thor, and perhaps the original Jehovah, but not the philosophical concept of God, around which all of religion revolves, and due to which we are so drawn to religion.

Philosophy aside, I believe that the practical side of the book is also lacking. He argues that moderate religion is harmful since it paves the way to fundamentalism, but I would argue the exact opposite: people have an innate desire for religion (it stimulates a very specific part of the brain, as demonstrated by neurological studies) that they will want to satisfy, just like their sexual and romantic urges, their desire to lead or follow, and their desire for substances like drugs and alcohol (note that prohibition doesn't work). Moderate religion allows people to satisfy these religious urges without causing any significant harm, and providing many psychological benefits. In the absence of moderate religion, fundamentalist religions (like radical Islam and certain American Evangelical churches) or even cult-like religions such as Scientology rise to power, embraced by people who feel that something is missing from their lives and can't get it elsewhere. A classic example of this is the rise of radical Islam in European countries: young people raised in entirely secular households, with their religious desires unfulfilled seek religious fulfillment from mosques, operated by radicals with a political agenda.

Even if you see no metaphysical value in moderate religion, you should at least consider it as a 'vaccine' of sorts.

But I think that Dawkins knows all this full well. The problem is that such an idea will not sell books as well as radical Atheism. 'End radical religion' isn't nearly as attractive a slogan to angry young Atheists as 'Death to all Religion, the root of all evil'.

Read the book, was great

@Ilya: Hmm, have not thought about the Flying Spaghetti Monster like that. I guess it is a strawman argument against deity-like gods. Then again, there are still people that believe Christianity deity-like.
Is referring the bible and all its prophets and stories not deity-like? Since there is no provable link between the bible and god.
PS not read Dawkins book.

Referring to the bible as a symbolic document is not deity-like. Neither are prophet if you consider their metaphysical revelations results of meditation; exploration of the secrets inside their own minds, and reaching metaphysical truths through a medium other than logic. Of course, you could disagree with the value of such revelations but this is a more complicated topic that goes beyond the spaghetti monster argument.

Now, the fundamentalist belief that Jesus Christ is literally the 'son' of God (or God himself) is obviously deity-like. Same goes for any attempt to view the bible as an accurate scientific document (young earth, creationalism).

But how can the bible merely be symbolic if people actually think the things it says are true? What if they believe creationism, how can a god be non-deitistic if he has done things that are very specific?

Read my post. I've specifically said that the literal interpretation of the bible that fundamentalists are so fond of is not what I'm talking about.

It's very easy to believe that the bible is true and symbolic at the same time. For example, Shakespeare writes,

One can read this and say 'this statement is true' and yet not believe in cupid, or that he shoots arrows and places traps.

The God Delusion is an excellent book, and it would be excellent if every single person who believed in any sort of god read it so they would be confronted with reality and just how terribly far from it their belief system is.

@Ilya: You mean that in saying it is true, you actually mean that the symbolical statement is true, like the book Animal Farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Guess i agree with that. Often the bible is not used in that way, though. Perhaps the symbolic use is even used as 'cover' when people criticise actual literal use. (when it actually is literal use)

Exactly. 'Truth' is a value that can be attributed to ideas only, not to the words, sounds or images which are supposed to transfer those ideas from one person to another. If someone interprets the bible literally, he has a false idea in his mind. However, if someone interprets the bible symbolically, he can very well have a true idea in his mind.

I know that it is often interpreted literally, especially in America, and that frustrates me, as well as actual religious people to no end. However, I do see it interpreted symbolically even more often, even by some very religious friends and family. And I also understand that sometimes people who seem to interpret it literally are subconsciously thinking about the underlying symbolism. The real problems only arise when these people reject science and reality on the basis of the literal interpretation.

As you can read here, allegorical interpretations of the Bible, or Genesis at least (which is the only OT book that truly deals with metaphysics) are not a recent invention, and are fairly popular.

Many Jews (most that I have met) hold this view:

It is brave. But even if it was the best book explaining why God is a Delusion, it is a useless effort because some people just do not understand.

I think it is a fascinating read, and definitely provides evidence against the general view people hold of God, but personally it doesnt do anything for me aside from that. I believe in God still.

The question of faith is really about your criteria for knowledge of how the world is and behaves. If you degrade the level of evidence you need to simply an idea that sounds OK, you replace knowledge with opinion. It becomes a question of knowledge as what is acceptable to an individual. Science tries to produce knowledge that is reliable and transferable and still applicable between people.

If we are to rely on understanding the way the world works, we have to be able to identify if it doesn't work that way, so an opinion isn't good enough. That what evidence is for. If the test can be reproduced reliably by others, we can identify when a belief is false. In the case of religion, the beliefs are defined in such a way that they cannot be tested, and therefore offer nothing in the way of knowledge. For example, an angel is indistinguishable from a leprechaun or any other fanciful beast I dream up. It doesn't not constitute knowledge.

The books like the Bible, Qur'an, Torah and so on all have their roots in oral tradition, collections of beliefs common amongst bronze age societies. If we are to take those descriptions as evidence of real events, we have to look at corroborating evidence (from archeology for example) and probabilities.

What Dawkins has done is to apply the standard for acceptable knowledge used in science (which we depend on day-to-day to provide us with practical results) with religious notions. He provides solid philosophical arguments categorised into the common groups.

It's worth reading Dawkins but for those who want to see the complementary philosophical dissections it's also worth looking at the work of Daniel Dennett who demonstrates the facile mistakes made by theologians as well as providing a neuroscientific explanation for the origin of religious beliefs.

I'd also recommend reading the Qur'an to see how prejudiced the religious viewpoint is, as it hectors for several hundred pages about how unbelievers are prejudged to be damned. The Torah gives an interesting take on the oral history of the middle eastern tribes. When you read all these things, it becomes clear that religion is the proper subject for anthropology.

I just always assumed that the OT was an object lesson on the assertion that absolute power corrupts absolutely. But that might just be me.

It's an interesting read, but Dawkins defeats himself by making use of hundreds of emotive arguments and logical fallacies.

Where he could simply discuss the limit of our sensual perceptions of the world in a philosophical manner he chooses to analogise it with a burka which restricts our view... He's totally dogmatic in his approach and I think it's really hurt atheism's position as the most reasonable theological position to adopt.

Quite a few people have claimed that. So far no-one has identified any emotive arguments or logical fallacies in his work.

He explains that there is no reason to require a supernatural being to provide explanations of how the world works. He argues that it is not possible to "prove" the existence or non-existence of an insubstantial supernatural god but that for rational people to believe it in preference to any other fanciful invention, there needs to be extraordinary evidence which is missing.

He has then, very consistently categorised the philosophical mistakes illustrated by various religious positions. For example, he explains the difference between ethical and religious thinking.

None of this stuff is emotive. Perhaps the book deserves a second read?

So let's not believe anything about a book that should not be taken literal but let's believe in a man who writes another? The bible doesn't hold as true as people would like to think and it's proof was how pages were only added to man's liking, words turned, meanings ill taken, so I find it hard to believe that people can even take his book this way. This guy proves otherwise about something you don't believe to be true or twisted anyway? It's like taking an old wives tale or fairy tale, giving it a personal spin and making it a false truth to others and going ,"yeah, that's what it meant" "old mother hubbord was a dog abuser, this guy said so!"

He is nothing more than pushing his own non-beliefs by stating everyone who believes in religion is delusional. He is nothing more than a pompous ass with an opinion. Everyone talks about proof this, proof that, faith is not proof and look up the definition of faith. Faith is felt and not something you can just tell someone to have, it's a belief and feeling within oneself and either you get it or you don't.

Religion has helped and hurt but only due to those who use it, not because of it. He has proven nothing except make a whole book and a shit load of money off something he claims is fake anyway. Ironic isn't it?