From an objective viewpoint, is it worth a read?

From an objective viewpoint, is it worth a read?

Other urls found in this thread:

physics.wustl.edu/alford/reviews/Dawkins_God_Delusion.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

no

No. Just read the wiki page for atheism and Richard Dawkins and you'll get the jist. Basically he says what your high school science teacher wants him to say

No. The fact that you're posting a bait book that just antagonizes shows that you have a concrete stance already and not looking to have your views changed or challenged. Either you're an atheist and you can pat yourself on the back while reading it and have some holes in your argument filled in or positions reinforced, or you're a dogmatic Christian whose views wont change by reading it, and you can pat yourself on the back for finding the opposition's arguments weak and lacking. Either way, this book will just be self-congratulatory masturbation.

That's a lot of assumptions for asking if a book is worth a read.

he basically just ticks off all the common sense reasons for why god doesn't exist

if you have basic faculties of reason and you already know god doesn't exist, then you don't need to read it

All these cartesian fucks can be squashed into a wikipedia article. The genius of William Gaddis is the ineluctable is so strong, you could never capture it in a wikipedia article, even if people make the heroic, if ultimately doomed, efforts to, which they unavoidably do.

Exactly my point, friend. You caught the meaning behind that post, yes.

My christian brother read it and it didn't convert to atheism so its probably not very convincing.

My atheist sister red the bible and it didn't convert her to Christianity so its probably not very convincing.

...

Your sister sounds like a cunt

So, the entire book is "Hurr if God exists, why does he allow all the bad shit in the world."

>Objective worth

Your sister needs to be baptized.

It really isn't

No shes just not one of gods elect.

no

from now on you should refrain from discussing books you haven't read. actually, just never post anything and you will come across as less of a cretin

>from now on you should refrain from discussing books you haven't read. actually, just never post anything and you will come across as less of a cretin

[euphoric.bmp]

awesome responses guys! hows baseless contrarianism going for you

Atheism is the epitome of baseless contrarianism

calm down, bitch

>I've forgotten the details, but I once piqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting the ontological argument to prove that pigs can fly. They felt the need to resort to Modal Logic to prove that I was wrong.

This is an actual quote from the book.

physics.wustl.edu/alford/reviews/Dawkins_God_Delusion.html

You fedoras need to do better.

And the readers of Richard think he is saying something insulting, but the readers of actual books understand he is getting proven wrong.

Richard Dawkins is like that one nerdy guy you know that lives with all the normies. He does nerdy things so he can have a spot in the group, but doesn't actually read books. He just owns them. Then all the normies turn to him and he has to say something smart

'uh uhhh blabhalbalah GODS NOT REAL GUISE'

'woah dude, you must be like, really smart'

'yeah man, wow this guy knows stuff'

'Y-yeah! And I read everyone! AAHAH LOOK HOW POPULAR I AM'

Looks like Dawkins insulted your god

It's awful. Read his books on science instead, they're well-written and interesting.