An intelligently designed argument against theism.
Dawkins is one of the most important critical thinkers of our times. His contributions to the field of biology alone secure him among the ranks of great thinkers.
In the God Delusion, Dawkins argues forcefully and effectively for a naturistic worldview. His most interesting and new argument is a response to the belief that somehow, the universe and life are so complex that they require an explanation in the form of an intelligent designer/creator. He challenges this with the obvious point that anything able to design and create something the universe must itself be far greater than the universe, and therefore, would itself require a much greater explanation. Yet, theists assert that God merely is self existent. If this is an acceptable answer, then, of course, the answer that the universe is self existent is also acceptable. Dawkins fleshes this out wonderfully, and this is just one of the many treats inside this book.

Mike Tenenbaum, Author - Blessed Assurance? A Demonstration that Christian Fundamentalism is Simply False. Expanded - Limited Edition.

Rehash.
Dawkins is at his best when using the tools that he has mastered over his lifetime of academia: biology and bio-chemistry, evolutionary biology. Anyone who has read his "The Ancestor's Tale" can have little doubt about this.

However, as an Atheist myself, I find myself unconvinced by his forays into religious talk. Sure he can destroy arguments against Creationism/Intelligent Design, this is where he shines.

However, he brings nothing new to the table of discourse, no new arguments for the Athiestic position are raised, no new ways of thinking about the problem(s) are presented - 1 star. I will add another simply because Dawkins can write, and write rather well, in my own opinion. Thus 2 stars.

I do think that Dawkins does a serious disservice to Atheists and Atheism in that he advocates it as a "belief that god does not exist"... [this taken right from the little flash video right here on the book's site at Amazon]. Immediately, my thinking antennae starts to twitch. Why haven't men such as Dawkins and Hitchins addressed this fundamental point? I can only assume that they haven't thought the notion of a 'belief that god(s) do not exist' all the way through. With Dawkins advocating such a 'belief' it does nothing in addressing the true nature of Atheism, precisely 'no god-belief' or to put it more directly, to lack god knowledge. In this we Atheists are not alone as no person on earth has any god knowledge or knowledge of god - they may say they do but in the court of reason and thought, god knowledge evaporates (scriptural authority and personal experience lack the qualifications of reasoned knowledge, but as a review it would take a bundle of lines to detail. Besides, it is not the rationale behind this review) - Atheists are the most vocal group who admit to such lack of god knowledge and proclaim it as part of their system of conclusions that there is no good reason to have a belief in god; there may be 'reasons' (not to be confused with rational thought, thinking, agnosticism) to believe in god(s) but there are no 'good reasons' to believe in god and perhaps 'good reasons' NOT to believe in god.

I do sincerely hope that Dawkins and the like of conversion-minded Atheists who have sprung up recently, at some point, address this inconsistancy in their mis-represented (misunderstood?) definition and thus outlook of Atheism but I suspect that until someone can show them the flaw in their statements that directly pertain to a 'belief that there is no god(s)', this will only add to the inflammatory subject of Atheism vs. Theism(s). It has been rightly pointed out many times that a belief that something doesn't exist takes almost as much or just as much time, energy,and thought as a belief that something does exist. To lack belief removes the Atheist from the equation of 'belief' all together and can properly set the debate on its thoughtful course: the rational from the non-rational to the irrational, to the true from the false to the neither true nor false, to the reasoned and unreasoned, to the claims of religion and religious 'belief' and their truthfulness and falsity/falsifiability.

I'm sure that my comments will be unconvincing to many and may even appear as symmantical, but having thought through the problem, nature, language and its offhanded and mis-use in language (i.e. "I 'believe' that it will be sunny tomorrow') of 'belief', I hope that Atheists can move to a more complete Atheistic understanding and perhaps move the argument into the necessary arena of persuasion and convincing debate that so far has not taken hold because the ideas espoused by the likes of Dawkins are rarely persuasive to the believer. Once we can move effectively into that necessary human and psychological domain of persuasion through right/correct argument then we might see some practically understood applications of how we can use and constrain religion instead of being used and constrained by religion (i.e. the entire political process and views drip with religious bias and need to be thought out in the absence of religion, as should science).

Written by the ego for the ego!!!
Dear Sir you fall into the same trap as fundamental God botherers that you are so against.Sure was a big bang and sure there is a God in fact you look at God everyday in the mirror in an act of selfless love or in the face of the universe.God is awareness completed or you completed if you like,time is the delusion here and only the impermenent limited mind is restricted to it.

Dawkins as Usual
The atheist's position has always seemed a curious one, since by definition it involves proving a negative. All good theologians from Tertullian to Ruhollah Khomeiny will happily tell you they have no idea what they mean when they use the word "God." So it's as if you're given a Navaho word, let's say "Dzihl," without being told what it means. The atheist then says, "Dzihl definitely doesn't exist. I say this with certainty, despite the fact that I have no idea what Dzihl is."
To argue that God doesn't exist because we can explain the Universe without Him seems equally curious. We can explain European history satisfactorily without reference to Beethoven's music. Beethoven's music nevertheless exists.
Dawkins' book is not going to convince, or even sway, one single person. He must know this: so what is it in fact but another expression of his Jehovah-sized ego?
Apart from vanity and arrogance, the most striking feature is sheer ignorance. He plainly has not read even the most basic sources, theological, philosophical, historical, that bear on this complex subject. He advances stale chestnuts as novelties and relies on arguments exploded a thousand years ago. What would he think about a theologian who wrote a book debunking evolutionary biology without reading so much as a high-school level textbook on the subject?
It is hardly news that people do bad stuff, nor that religion has nothing to do with this. The 20th century, the Age of Science, has also justly been called the Age of Genocide. The belief that "eliminating superstition" would bring peace and harmony was abandoned by thinking people after the First World War.
I have no religious beliefs myself, yet I can see that religion is, no contest, the most universal and influential phenomenon in human history. To despise religion is to despise the human race. To dismiss religion is to dismiss the human race. "Rationalists" who consider themselves members of a superior species are at least as dangerous as any Inquisitor or fundamentalist zealot.

A Book for Every Thinking Person's "Must Read" List
One will readily expect the perceptions and reviews of Richard Dawkins' THE GOD DELUSION to fall along what might euphemistically be called "party lines." Blue Staters, rationalists, and the college educated (especially in mathematics, engineering, the sciences, and technology) will find it thought-provoking and intellectually stimulating even if they disagree with the author's views. Red Staters, religious fundamentalists, and readers (if any) with less than a college education will be repulsed, likely to pit it against the Bible and regard Mr. Dawkins' as already marked for hellfire and eternal damnation. In the broad sweep that is religion, few minds will be changed, but was that really the author's objective? I think not.

Mr. Dawkins offers clues to his game plan fairly early on, arguing that atheists have no reason to be apologetic. He argues vigorously against the, "I'm an atheist, but..." position offered by many, treating it as an unnecessary concession to the forces of blind, irrational faith who would never reciprocate. Mr. Dawkins sets out as well to convince agnostics (among whom I've long considered myself) that their position is an unfounded hedge, hoping to convince them that outright atheism is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from so many arguments. His arguments are direct and persuasive, and I for one will confess to being swayed far closer to his position than previously.

THE GOD DELUSION is thorough in its approach and exceedingly well structured. Presenting his case like a lawyer in an extended closing argument, Dawkins moves from chapter to chapter setting up his opponents' many historical arguments for the existence of God and religion and then demolishing each of them by force of reason and scientific argument. He does this in a direct and highly readable, almost colloquial style, while injecting a sense of wry humor throughout that serves admirably to lighten the discussion. Dawkins demonstrates a remarkable scientific, philosophical, and even pop cultural range, with multiple references to the incomparable, much missed Douglas Adams. To my great surprise, he draws as well on theories from Lee Smolin (multiple universes emerging from black holes in a Darwinian, evolutionary style) and Julian Jaynes (theories of the origins of human consciousness in the bicameral mind), both of whose books I read some years ago and had thought long since forgotten by most. Equally enlightening for me were Dawkins extensive quotes from America's Founding Fathers, making it eminently clear (despite so many right wing conservative statements to the contrary) that the United States was not formed as a Christian state, nor that of any other religion. To the contrary, the Founding Fathers appear, by their own words, largely to have been atheists, or at least atheistic leaning agnostics.

Review readers should note that Dawkins does not simply confine himself to the question of existence of a higher being. He addresses issues of altruistic behavior and morality from an evolutionary perspective, debates the relative merits of religion over the course of human history, and presents (in Chapter 9) a devastating argument against the worldwide forced inculcation of children into religious belief by their parents. Quoting Victor Hugo at the opening of that chapter, "There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the clergyman." From my own life experience, seldom have truer words been spoken.

With well over a thousand reviews posted on Amazon alone, I see no reason to summarize the book's content or arguments. In fact, the only way to do real justice to the author's positions is to read it in its entirety - no summary can adequately convey Dawkins' step-by-step demolition of those who argue on behalf of God, faith, or religion. For those who have doubts in these areas and those who are left queasy over the clear and present danger religious fundamentalism poses to democratic American institutions and its role in international terrorism and the threat of broad scale war, THE GOD DELUSION is an excellent palliative. Large swaths of post-millennial America are moving increasingly toward theocracy, a trend viewed with alarm by most of the rest of the educated, Western world. One need only look at the disturbing comments from Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin (expecting to see the Messiah return in her lifetime and incorporating the end of days into her admittedly limited foreign policy views) to see just how close to reality this is becoming.

For those who consider themselves even minimally open-minded on the subject of religion and the existence of an all-powerful being ("whatever you conceive him to be, hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin" in the immortal words of the National Lampoon), THE GOD DELUSION is a book well worth reading and contemplating.