When I started this thread, I was not one of the ones who was in "Hysterics" about him- as a PanDeist, I actually share many views with Atheists and think that it is a brilliantly argued and excellent book that certainly should sit on anyone's bookcase - my argument is that he is over-evangelising his philosophy by seemingly blaming religion for everything - one can see that his logic (although it is brilliant) has one flaw, in that it hypothesizes than an Atheist world would have hardly any conflict, and that people who are religious are somehow lower and that Atheists are "superior" to them. I've had many conversations with radical Atheists, and they often use Richard Dawkin's book as a pretext to simply poke needless fun at perfectly moderate believers. People should be allowed to deviate, people should be allowed to have their own interpretation- what worries me is that Dawkins seems to be emphasising that the "true" way is Atheism - THERE IS NO TRUE WAY! (except religious fundamentalism and other wako beliefs). Just because Dawkins sits behind a calm, Scientific exterior that is both brilliant and mind and in literary skill, that doesn't give him the right to effectively use fundamentalist feeling for his own beliefs. He has seen that Atheism is indeed something neccesary for the modern world - contempary religion is dead -, but other strands of Philosophical thinking that do not conform entirely with Atheism are not. It seems that in an effort to appeal to people to rally to Atheism, he is using (as numerous people have said) fundamentalist rhetoric. God is a concept, a theory, an idea - ideas cannot be destroyed - they can be given egos, personalities, but they cannot be destroyed. The fundamental essence behind the concept of god - the "Einstein religion" as Dawkins put it - man's capibility for wonder of the natural world, with never die. If people choose to venerate this with some kind of cultural guise and/or ego, there is nothing that he can do about it and I suggest that he live with it, because religion is not going to die, and Atheism is not the ends and the means. Everyone's got to find their own way, and they've got to find it themselves. Science has advanced to the point that we in the West (and many of you outside of the west) don't need our wonder of the natural world to be given a cultural guise anymore, but infinity/god always has guises, there are always knew philosophical theorems and there will always be conflict.

I say again, I realise that Dawkins is an highly respected figure (by me also ) but I feel that there are so many ridiculous myths that Atheists assosiate with him that his book certainly desires closer inspection to find out where the basis for these come from.

Precisely! You've always got to machine-gun your own and other peoples' beliefs (...but not literally, like whats happening in Iraq...). In my mind, anyone that dares to oppose the constant questioning is dangerous- be they Religious or Atheist. We must question everything.

I'm aware of that, but those things are materialistic and function by the laws of physics - things like metaphysics and philosophy can all have equally valid systems and still be contradictory. People have grappled for millenia with these issues - there is no answer! It's too large a question - t least we can find personal ways which help us look at the question in a way which helps us live our lives.

...Also (this is highly relevant to Mr.Dawkins...) there is such a thing as overstating the case - although they are helpful in today's world, preaching Atheists are boring and frankly tell us the case (which we know is valid) again and again and again.

What are you on about, seriously? I called you a twat because you indirectly called me a fool in the post before that? You haven't brought any facts to the table so far Emmet.

With religion as with atheism the name of the game changes for environmentalism now becomes the de-facto religion of the West. Both believer and atheists alike are in denial of how this world alters especially in our mind and our resulting behaviour. When history happens before our eyes how dull are those who cannot see those changes for they are too busy to care! The emphasis on scientific development alone is madness; to refuse to see this world alone supports us is insanity but the same old games continue. I have a theory that issues where nothing can be are stirred up to divert us from the realities, where something can be done if enough people had a mind to do what it takes

 From that point of view I cannot see Dawkins as a liberator of our consciousness, just one who tries to rearrange the deck chairs on the sinking ship of present disagreements. Better, I suppose, than those who believed the ship of the world they sailed in to be unsinkable and now try to hide away from the consequences of what they have brought about by living in denial of present knowledge.

As an agnostic, I don't feel particular respect either for fanatic religious people or fanatic atheistics.

Atheistics are just the opposite than the follower of a religion. Atheistics "believe" God doesn't exist.... That's important, atheistics are convinced there is no God, and that that conviction is the "truth". With that fixed idea, they sometimes act with the same fanatism as the religious people, and they have resorted to violence as well, particularly in association of totalitarian regimes, like we saw in the Spanish Civil War, in the U.S.S.R. or China, to name a few.

As an agnostic, I don't want to be confussed with atheistics at all. Agnostic believe in the "limits of human knowledge" and it is, therefore, a modest position. We just believe "we don't know!".