Richard Dawkins. Still the best by far.

[Bella Fortuna]

@ratesu. I think you've missed Dawkins' point a bit. In the opening chapter of TGD he's very careful to outline that the book is an argument against the monotheistic Abrahamic versions of god only. Likewise, he excludes deism too. He sets the boundaries of what he's arguing against and proceeds from there.

Of course it can be extended to other beliefs too, but if I remember correctly, the idea behind the 7 point scale was that the default position of agnosticism isn't 50:50 probability. The main thing that I never understood is why seven?

One for every chakra!

[Tero]

If I tell someone that black cats cause bad luxk, there is no proof that it is not true, it could work part of the time.

Proofs for God are on the same level.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Never got around to The God Delusion myself. First Dawkins' book I encountered was The Selfish Gene.

He is a great science communicator but not so hot on less rational pursuits like politics...

No shit - he votes LibDem!

...His background is similar to Darwin's, semi-aristocratic...

I'd say his background was more aristocratic than Darwin's. Darwin came from "new money".

...people have complained about the quality of the arguments in The God Delusion...

Not having read it I can't really comment, except to say that the quality of arguments against a particular proposition are often partly constrained by the quality of the arguments that constitute the proposition.

In other words - how good do the arguments against such a mindless idea as the existence of god have to be?

[hadespussercats]

I'd hit it.

OOOhhhh LP's got a rival!

There's room for everyone in the big bed of evolutionary biology.

[orpheus]

I'd hit it.

OOOhhhh LP's got a rival!

There's room for everyone in the big bed of evolutionary biology.

You know, out of context that sounds rather creepy.

[hadespussercats]

I'd hit it.

OOOhhhh LP's got a rival!

There's room for everyone in the big bed of evolutionary biology.

You know, out of context that sounds rather creepy.

Probably does in context, too!

If you catch my genetic drift...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Most of Dawkins' arguments in TGD were recycled from earlier works - notably Bertrand Russell, Chapman Cohen. Personally, I find Daniel Dennett's writing to be far more original, better thought out and his arguments hold far more water.

As a self-publicist, however, Dawkins is unsurpassed. Possibly his greatest contribution to the "atheist cause" is bringing it to the public attention in a way that not even Russell or Hitchens managed.

[Jason]

I bought Dennett's Breaking the Spell when it was released but I've never been able to finish it. Something about his style of writing puts me to sleep.

For a more rounded perspective on matters religious/spiritual I prefer Joseph Campbell's psychological take on religious symbology. Because he is not so quick to dismiss it wholesale it allows for a more in depth study of the mechanisms of various faiths and how they may have served a critical purpose in the growth of individuals and societies as a whole. Reading his works on, what we now call, comparative religion also lends excellent insights into the idiosyncrasies of different world cultures. Of course much of his analyses are based on Jungian premises, but I still think they are very valuable.

TGD influenced me not so much by argument, but by the popularisation of atheism that resulted from it and the other pop-atheism books published around the same time. I had been an atheist for a long time before that but I rarely spoke of it to anyone. TGD and RDF influenced me to become a militant atheist for a while - a phase I grew out of eventually as I gradually returned to being more genteel about it. I do not, however, hesitate to engage in argument about it now if I think it's worthwhile.

[Svartalf]

I'd hit it.

OOOhhhh LP's got a rival!

There's room for everyone in the big bed of evolutionary biology.

Girl, didn't you learn that GOD goes in the gap, not dick?

[lordpasternack]

I'd hit it.

OOOhhhh LP's got a rival!

There's room for everyone in the big bed of evolutionary biology.

Speak for yourself… This town ain't big enough for the both of our selfish genes…

[JimC]

[fretmeister]

TGD was the first atheist book I had read. I came from a CofE background and had been slipping from the fold.

As with all things, the first exposure to a subject is always deemed to be thought provoking even if later you discover that some of the arguments have been presented in a somewhat shallow manner.

That book confirmed my own thought processes were not unusual and that there were others thinking the same thing.

It was not the final nail in the coffin of my belief but it accelerated the process massively. That required something else (another day).

These days I consider TGD to be Dawkins' least impressive book, but as it happens, probably the most important one. I love the Ancestor's Tale and the Blind Watchmaker.

RD may well be gloriously naive when it comes to politics (and I don't agree that a university's internal insular politics prepares anyone for the outside world) and business but I find that to be part of his charm.

However, with Hitchens gone, Harris becoming increasingly odd and RD getting rather old, there is no "figurehead" - I don't like that term but the media have no idea how to deal with any "movement" (I hate that term too) that hasn't got a spokesperson. The media won't even bother to get a quote / response from just someone who has similar views. They need a name, something that carries a bit of weight and at the moment I can't see anyone else being a likely candidate.

But to avoid the "High Priest of Atheism" bollocks it must be the media who effectively picks the person! It cannot be a "promotion" or "selection" process otherwise the inevitable and so very tiresome comparisons with organised religion will continue.

Knowing the media, they'll pick whoever sells the most books.

Perhaps it;s time for Brian Cox to write a "Top 100 nobbers" book!

[Audley Strange]

Interesting post actually Fretmeister.

It does seem to me that thisi is the aftermath of atheism as a "fashion wave". A lot of people seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of it being a community and since RDF collapsed it appears that "community" is fracturing further and further. This has obviously been helped along somewhat by self proclaimed "figureheads" who have the intellectual rigour and and objectivity of a bunch of high school children and by an increasing number of people trying to veer this loose net of people into their political agendas, which is not fit for purpose.

I think we could bring it together again. I think it still has important work to do, but right now were having to deal with a gang of women who's feelings are hurt, which is of course much much more important.

[Warren Dew]

Interesting post actually Fretmeister.

It does seem to me that thisi is the aftermath of atheism as a "fashion wave". A lot of people seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of it being a community and since RDF collapsed it appears that "community" is fracturing further and further. This has obviously been helped along somewhat by self proclaimed "figureheads" who have the intellectual rigour and and objectivity of a bunch of high school children and by an increasing number of people trying to veer this loose net of people into their political agendas, which is not fit for purpose.

I think we could bring it together again. I think it still has important work to do, but right now were having to deal with a gang of women who's feelings are hurt, which is of course much much more important.

Atheism is neither a religion nor an ideology. Thinking that we should naturally "come together" is like thinking that everyone who doesn't like broccoli should "come together". There isn't really any significant commonality there.

I mean seriously, did all atheists start voting liberal democrat just because Dawkins did? Would it even make sense to do so?

[rasetsu]

I bought Dennett's Breaking the Spell when it was released but I've never been able to finish it. Something about his style of writing puts me to sleep.

I read about 1/4 of Breaking The Spell and had to stop. I think he was pacing it slowly, intentionally, to have a better chance of persuading religious readers. I couldn't stand it, it was sooooo slow. I've been reading Dennett since Consciousness Explained. I persuaded one of my atheism book clubs to read Freedom Evolves, and everybody hated it — including me. His earlier free will book, Elbow Room, is much better, but it's pretty dense reading. Beyond that, I'd recommend Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Consciousness Explained. I think I read some of The Intentional Stance, which is probably his most important philosophical work, but I don't remember it; probably obligatory reading.

He is in quite a few Youtube videos, and he's not a bad speaker, so you might check him out there.