Not even trying to be edgy or anything. I saw this on sale and

Popular "science" for dummies. Very entertaining though.

>>10010743

It's Atheism 101. It's not bad, but it's not very interesting unless you're a pleb. As books, his biology and evolution stuff is a thousand times better and smarter.

>>10010743
thinking about religion is pointless. some people need it others don't, let the autists fight and get laid.
also, atheism in the dawkins vein is religious.

>>10010743
I remember reading the morality chapter, was interesting and uncomplicated.

>>10010750
Which of his biology and evolution books would you recommend?

>>10010743
It's not terrible. However I started reading it and the first section was just him smugly responding to letters he'd received after publication. I couldn't continue.

File: 23b839369e93b5fee4245dd668255833--female-celebrities-bathing-suits[1].jpg (25KB, 224x423px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 224x423px

yes its a "good" read. its far better than most of the shit you find in popular science, political or religion bookery.

it'll do you no harm to read it.

these "should i read it?" threads are fucking pathetic, bytheway. You can get dawkins' book for free on pdf and at least skim through it to see what you think.

do you need help wiping your own arse?
why not read it......then start a thread about it?

I suspect its because you're a lazy cunt who can't tear themselves away from vidya, anime and porn long enough to read a fucking book.

get the fuck out you disgusting manchild.....and tidy your room

>look and those titties

>>10010743
he's a good writer despite what lit might think. But that book is kinda meh, Selfish Gene, Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, and Ancestor's Tale are all much much better books by him.

What about The Selfish Gene?

It is incredibly awful. Find a better atheist who actually understands philosophy because this is one of those rare books that makes the reader dumber than before. You will come out of this book with a misunderstanding of various arguments for God because he doesn't even attempt to portray them accurately. I genuinely wonder if he did any research before writing it.

>>10010817
It's good.

>>10010743
>buying stuff you don't even know, because marketing and memes, I guess

You're all that's bad with capitalism and life in general.
Read the book for free and then if you really like it buy it to support the author.

>>10010743
Problem with Dawkins is he has a set objective in mind and tries to argue his way to the source.

The reality is he is a second rate biologist with a particular. cadence. To speaking. That gets nerds hard. He despises all religion and its a book you buy so you can appropriate his arguments and all have a jerkoff nodding session with your similarly liberal-atheist friends.

Only if its not the only atheist book you read.

File: 1490307324713.png (612KB, 1074x664px) Image search: [Google]

612KB, 1074x664px

https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/334656775196393473?lang=en

>>10010743
No. It's cringeworthy and you'd be better off ready actual philosophy of any religious stripe.

File: Seriously.png (405KB, 639x427px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 639x427px

Look, if you don't believe in god, why waste your time in reading something that justifies not believing.

Go get some philosophy on the behaviour of man.