This book has some issues that I have a hard time getting over. The main one is Dawkins lack of argument for the vast majority of the book. Now let me state this, I agree with him almost completely so I didn't need this as a decision maker, but I looked at it as if I did because that is how it was advertised. He spends the majority of this book spouting typical opinion bull, some talking philosophy and barely any at all actually spouting facts. That last is what bothered me the most, I expected more in that seeing as how he is ridiculously intelligent and an amazing scientist. Also because he spends most of his time telling you how the religious argument always lacks evidence. Atheists the world over are brandishing this book as if it were the end all be all of anti religious arguments, but I disagree. Heartily unfortunately. I would have loved this book to be just that, really I would as I'm sick of religion in all of it's facets, but it isn't and I won't pretend that it is. I think it especially fails as a tool for conversion, to the undecided or the previously decided for the aforementioned lack of evidence. It is an interesting book, that I enjoyed especially after about the halfway mark. I really liked his philosophical points, and I think everyone should read it, but I don't think it accomplishes what everyone wants it to. Now I move on to "God Is Not Great", stay tuned for that one.

What can I say? Probably the most influential and controversial book to come out of the last decade. For an atheist, this book came as a very welcome breath of fresh air. Before Dawkins, atheists felt they had to explain and justify their non-belief; the cultural impact of this book is that that situation is now reversed for many people, and believers now feel that THEY have to explain why they believe in the face of so much contradictory evidence. One of the best books ever...

stating the obious is whats needed, it opened my eyes to the curse of religion and i thought it was a great read, simplified for the non intellectual.

I thought thst it was a bit like shooting fish in a barrel - a lot of stating the obvious with little original argument.

I've just reread this, and I still think it's brilliant.