What do you like about Dawkins books?

I'll happily give my opinion on this one Syamsu:Dawkins is both an excellent life-sciences scientist and he is also educated in the classics. There is nothing wrong with being eloquent in description - it's not his fault you don't understand the prose he uses. Take that phrase you complain about - 'pitiless indifference' - just his eloquent way of saying "nature doesn't give a shit for your life - whether you survive and breed is down to the luck of your gene inheritance coupled with the natural selection that is working in the environment you live in. If you are lucky enough to have the genes that are successful in that environment you will prosper, if not you will persih - and Nature quite frankly doesn't give a shit which way the cookie crumbles."Now i've said that in 72 words in modern slang (with attitude) yet he eloquently says the same with just those two words - but means exactly the same - nature doesn't give a shit. If you don't understand that nature really doesn't give a shit about you or any of the other billions of life forms on this planet then that only goes to show you haven't the faintest notion of what evolution is about....either way it isn't Dawkins problem that you are both ignorant about biology and ignorant about English prose...

Lets take it a step at a time Mike: I don't suffer fools gladly i'm afraid and i will make you explain anything that i don't think is clear in your replies. So the ad hominem attack i will deal with shortly. Can i ask though what your mean by your 'non sequitu and the 'vacuous truth'- don't just state words like this - explain the context in which you use them (your superman quote is meaningless - it says nothing). So please be more specific that i may reply accurately - ravings may work in a pulpit but not with me my friend! Who said it did? Your point being?? This should be good: Lets have these 'several fallacies' then Mike - any fool can make a statement like that - lets see you put the cards on the table (if you start long ravings i'll call you on it so beware) Angry personal attacks eh? Based on the fact that i thought the guy had said he had knowledge of biology....Well what he did say was: If Syamsu had no science or in this case, as the subject in question is biology, then life sciences, he should not be making the statement above. Would you make an opinionated comment about a particular procedure in say brain surgery if you had no knowledge of it? To express an opinion of a subject one has by definition to have to know something about it (or else be totally irrational). So i acted accordingly - i called Syamsu for decrying Dawkins by attacking on a science front when he doesn't have the knowledge and therefore shouldn't express an unwaranted opinion - it's very simple really Mike...you wouldn't expect me to express an opinion of your family without ever meeting them would you? Can you point out a creationist please who also has indepth biological knowledge? - they are as rare as rocking horse dung...i wonder why! You do realise don't you that the ToE utterly predicts that nature is indifferent. It's a lot harder to see why God's creationist vision should be so. Funnily enough...nor does this...Edited by AdminModulous, : fixed quote tags

...and sorry if you thought i was personally attacking Syamsu - i don't like personal attacks either - one should always concentrate on the argument.So where i was coming from with Syamsu's first post is that he effectively was saying "I can't see any merit in Dawkins work it doesn't sound like science to me - oh and by the way i don't understand the science anyway." (the bit about Syamsu's lack of science is easily inferred from his text).Now that is pretty arogant to be honest. You may not like Dawkins but the man has studied his subject intimately for many years and does know his science backwards - so to write him off by saying he doesn't sound scientific when Syamsu clearly isn't, is grossly unfair.If Syamsu had said "I don't understand what people see in Dawkins and i'd like some inside info from those who do understand his work" then that would have been totally different. And by the way i do commend Syamsu for reading Dawkins work - many non-scientists don't even try to bridge the gap!As regards the universe and purpose then i'm sorry to say the evidence (with which the material world at our fingertips is all we have to work with), favours Dawkins stance - pitilessly indifferent is exactly the way nature works. And by nature i mean all the material laws from stellar formation upwards. There is absolutely no evidence of any guiding creator whatsoever and Occam's Razor is very much of value here.That doesnt' mean it's wrong to believe in a God. That is personal preference and faith. I'm not knocking you or anyone else for doing that - all I am saying is that there is no evidence for it and belief in something without evidence is irrational...mind you falling deeply in love can be irrational and where are we without love?And although there is no evidence of purpose in the construction of the universe - there most certainly is purpose in each and every one of us. I love, laugh, cry, enjoy and strive just as the next person - in fact as an atheist i find the time i have on this planet to be highly precious, seing as i don't believe there's anything for me once its over. You would probably see that as sad - but to me i'd just rather have a wonderful inspired life now full of meaning in the world i do know exists than spend too much of it worrying over tiny details like am i pleasing an all-powerful diety enough to be 'rewarded' in some afterlife. Somehow that seems all too petty and mean to me.Back to Dawkins, i've read most of his books and seen him on TV a few times. Yes he is an atheist and yes he doesn't care for the 'effects' he thinks religion can promote, but in all the reading and TV appearances i've seen of him he comes across to me as actually a passionate man full of empathy for both his felllow man and for the nature around him...he seems well in tune with his environment - it is only the philosophy of religion and the way it can often warp minds that worries him. It's sad he has drawn this vitriol for i don't think he wants that legacy particularly.It's amazing what passions can stir in people isn't it....?