Industrial-Sized Deals TextBTS15 Shop Women's Handbags Learn more nav_sap_plcc_6M_fly_beacon Beach House $5 Off Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save pivdl pivdl pivdl  Amazon Echo Starting at $99 Kindle Voyage Nintendo Digital Games Gear Up for Football Baby Sale

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-5 of 5 reviews(1 star)show all reviews
6 of 96 people found the following review helpful
on August 20, 2013
I read the first few pages and decided this book was not the book for me. It was written by people who love to hear themselves speak. It is almost as if they tried to write as many words as possible to say as little as possible.
77 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
37 of 387 people found the following review helpful
on September 21, 2011
I'm a Christian who read this book and Dawkin's The God Delusion largely out of curiosity and I thoroughly enjoyed both. My final assessment? Great writers, but thoroughly unconvincing. Upon reading these works, one can't but help to get the feeling that their atheism, and their pure hatred of God and Christians in general, informs their science much more than their science informs their atheism. Take this straw man that Dawkins sets up in his book:

"However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable."

In other words, since creationists think that life is too complex to have arisen randomly (as the Darwinian materialists claim), any creator would necessarily be at least as, if not more, complex than the life you seek to explain. According to Dawkins, any creator must contain at least as much information as what it creates (e.g. the universe, life, etc...) and information is inversely correlated to probability. So, any God that could create everything would be too complex to be probable.

No wonder Dawkins is an atheist. His "god" is too small to believe in.

Can we not infer that any eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being with the ability to create life might in fact be infinitely complex and that the low probability that Dawkins posits says nothing more than that this being is unique (there is but one God), thereby accepting both the creator's infinite complexity and Dawkins' almost null probability? Dawkins never considers that possibility, again he begins with his atheism and works back from there.

Or, perhaps the reality is just the opposite. Maybe Dawkins' assumption of complexity breeding complexity is fallacious. Thomas Aquinas believed that God was simple, with no composition. Perhaps part of the beauty of God is His simplicity; a spirit, after all, has no parts. What better illustration of Occam's razor could exist?

And it was amazing to see just how many of these writers fell back on the "How Can God Be So Mean?" argument; that a good and perfect God would never allow such evil. This has always struck me as such a childlike argument. Is it a logical contradiction to believe in a wholly, good God who would allow evil to exist as part of His creation? I think not. In fact, the possibility of the existence of evil is a necessary corollary to the existence of unfettered free will. If man is free to choose, then the possibility for man to choose that which is not good is necessary.
174174 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
50 of 534 people found the following review helpful
on January 23, 2009
Without a doubt, some great readings from great minds (maybe Hitchens included). The problem seems to be that Atheists in general, and as borne out through this and other Hitchens books, assume a stance which is easily argued as an irrational counter belief that there is no God. What is presented as fact is really nothing more than a very different interpretation of facts or causal relationships than those who believe in God. Were Atheists more rational and less vitriolic in their dismissal of a greater being, they might be more convincing. The position that the existence of God can't be known or proven, yet can't really be disproven with Atheists coming down on the side of non-belief would be more persuasive than their silly and irrational depictions of believers as rubes and/or militant delusionists. Sorry, but Hitchens doesn't convince anyone but those who are already convinced.
3636 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
5 of 336 people found the following review helpful
luck when you stand before the God our father!
Your non belief however nicely spoken is wrong, wasted education. I believe you have already had your time before our God. I am sorry for those who do not believe !
1818 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
3 of 309 people found the following review helpful
on August 31, 2012
If anybody has liked this book, I suggest checking out this website. There are always two sides to a story.

[...]
77 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
     
 
Customers who viewed this also viewed
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens (Paperback - April 6, 2009)
$8.54

The God Delusion
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (Paperback - January 16, 2008)
$11.27

 
     

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.