These are very laboured jokes from this wordy blokey, as usual.

I haven't personally seen any maps which show what people believe. I've seen some maps showing what the predominant religions are. So no, I don't take it perfectly for granted and I don't see it as 'natural' that peoples opinions about the cosmos, morality and humanity should depend on any "accident" of geography. What accident? It seems to be entirely logical that the predominant religions would be the ones that already exist in each geographical location.

Still - this is stand-up, not science. If I were were in a comedy club audience I'd be shouting "geroff" by 0:37

One of the weaker of Dawkins' arguments:

Not only have I never seen such a map,the premise is false. We don't all accept any such thing. Dawkins is apparently a brilliant scientist as well as a clever polemicist, but seems to be a weak philosopher.

His philosophical arguments are terrible, event the ones that are true are poorly articulated.

The maps are real though, they are fairly accurate statistical representations.

(October 11, 2010 at 7:14 pm)theVOID Wrote: His philosophical arguments are terrible, event the ones that are true are poorly articulated.

The maps are real though, they are fairly accurate statistical representations.

Well, I think "The God Delusion" is pretty good!

Meh, it's good for a layman book on atheism and does a good job at outlining the main objections. The parts about the design argument are as you would expect, awesome, but the philosophical stuff later on is pretty terrible at times. I've read just about as many rebuttals of it from Philosophical atheists as i have theists.

(October 11, 2010 at 7:14 pm)theVOID Wrote: The maps are real though, they are fairly accurate statistical representations.

...of predominant religion. Belief is a different matter.

Sure, that doesn't change the point of his example though, even though he named it clumsily.

(October 11, 2010 at 7:23 pm)theVOID Wrote: Meh, it's good for a layman book on atheism and does a good job at outlining the main objections. The parts about the design argument are as you would expect, awesome, but the philosophical stuff later on is pretty terrible at times. I've read just about as many rebuttals of it from Philosophical atheists as i have theists.

I'm not being sarcastic-but it seems pretty hardcore for a layman's book on atheism. So what would you recommend for more hardcore atheism reading?? Because I've read both of Sam Harris's books.