First, you should know that I have only read a few chapters. I had to put the book down for a little break, because he's really bugging me and I want to actually finish it.

He ridicules religion for being simplistic -- but can't even get the facts straight on what a saint is in Catholicism, or the role of Mary. Simplistic but not worth researching?

He writes about how much of a pass we give religion in legal jurisprudence -- and cites a 2006 Supreme Court decision for it, while NEGLECTING to mention that the 06 ruling overturns a long, long line of decisions barring the conduct allowed in the 06 ruling. The problem is that you can't just cite this case for the facts of the case. You need to see *why* the SC overturned its prior line of cases and in fact the SC is probably, in this case, shaking its finger in the face of a Congress that it thinks is being too lenient on religion and showing us what the consequences could be.

He writes about how bad religion is for the world today, but he backs up his statements with inaccurate and oversimplified generalizations about current affairs and with citations to 4th century theologians and the Crusades and the like. So, first, don't tell me about the Crusades or the Inquisition, dude, we ALL agree they were bad.

But second, if you're going to talk about current affairs, get the role of religion in them right:

If you're going to object to the phrase "ethnic cleansing" (which, by the way, I object to as well), don't replace it with an even more euphemistic and incorrect term ("religious cleansing"). Use the real word: Genocide. Maybe the reason that Northern Ireland's combatants are called "nationalists" and "loyalists" is because that's a more accurate term than Catholics and Prots. We all know perfectly well that the "troubles" there were caused by Britain, just as the civil war in Iraq is not a religious war but a political one, the opportunity for which arose when the US came in and scrambled the political structure.

He focuses on Christianity "because it's the religion {he is} most familiar with." I say he should do his research rather than relying on his impressionistic memories. Asshole.

He gives Buddhism a pass because, as far as I can see, he just doesn't want to do the work to look into it. I try to practice it as an ethical framework, but I have had plenty of arguments with people who say with a straight face "It's not a religion" even as they sit on a dais in front of statues of the Buddha and of Kwan Yin, to which offerings of food have been made and before which people are bowing. smh If all religion is bad, go for it. But don't say that all religion is bad and then define stuff you like as "not religion." That's intellectually unsound.

And for that matter, he says that the Church of England is the least distasteful, and I think he desperately needs to examine his reasons for that. Maybe, just MAYBE it's because the C of E is the one he's had the most real experience with, and maybe, just MAYBE he could examine whether this experience could indicate that the better you know a religion, the less evil it seems.

I'm an atheist, too. But I dislike the shrill voice irrespective of what side it's on. If you say that you know the truth because you're a scientist, then subject all your arguments to the intellectual rigor that science demands. Either that, or don't try to draw parallels between scientific method and your biased and prejudicial statements.

I'm disgusted.

Sam Harris does the same shit.

I think that if your hypothesis is correct, it will convince people on its merits. I don't think you have to use hyperbole or shading or bias. I think that *weakens* your argument. I think Dawkins is a terrible representative of atheists -- the group he claims to stand for.

grrrr