Which part of the God Delusion did you find most offensive? (beliefs, experience)

[Fluffy]

I was watching an interview with Richard Dawkins the other day and heard him make the claim that if a theist read his book, they would not find it offensive. However, my experience has been the complete opposite because I have met many, many theists who have read his book and found it offensive.

Are there any theists here who found The God Delusion inoffensive?

If you did find The God Delusion offensive, which bit in particular (quotation or specific reference) did you find most offensive?

[Phasmid]

I didn't find it offensive (I was theist at the time). My friends were a lot more offensive about it than Dawkins. But I can see why people would be offened. Dawkins does come across as an arrogant **** a lot of the time.

[Apex]

I haven't read it yet, but I want to. I am just hesitant on spending money on a book that half the people claim is a piece of crap and the other half act as if it is divinely inspired even though they do not believe in deity.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Apex

I am just hesitant on spending money on a book that half the people claim is a piece of crap and the other half act as if it is divinely inspired even though they do not believe in deity.

That is exactly how I felt! I got it with book tokens .

[misanthropic_clown]

I wasn't particularly offended by the God Delusion, because as I read it I noticed he doesn't actually delve much into religion or philosophy. I don't really blame him that much for not caring to delve into the expanse of a topic that it is, but in order to engage a religious person I think it is necessary to get a firm grasp on what it is that they actually believe. In that sense I felt such a distance between what he was saying and my actual beliefs, it would have been impossible to really offend them.

I think that would have run the risk of making his book have to be much more specific though, and thus it would lose its general appeal.

I found God is not Great to be kind of offensive. I haven't actually read it all yet, but what I have read indicates it to be more smear campaign than actual solid argument.
I think Dawkins at least makes more of an attempt to engage the reader logically.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I was watching an interview with Richard Dawkins the other day and heard him make the claim that if a theist read his book, they would not find it offensive. However, my experience has been the complete opposite because I have met many, many theists who have read his book and found it offensive.

Are there any theists here who found The God Delusion inoffensive?

If you did find The God Delusion offensive, which bit in particular (quotation or specific reference) did you find most offensive?

I"m not sure what was more offensive: a total ignoramus on religious matters was telling people why it ain't so or the ignoramuses who believe him.

[michel]

I haven't read it; nor do I intend to, having read some of his thoughts. Besides, I've something moire important to do with my time:- watching paint dry.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Rolling Stone

I"m not sure what was more offensive: a total ignoramus on religious matters was telling people why it ain't so or the ignoramuses who believe him.

Could you explain which specific bits you found to be offensive?

[Rolling_Stone]

Runt explaind it better than I can:

Originally Posted by Runt

I heard Dawkins speak on campus a few weeks ago. Personally, I liked him better in person than in text, although I find "The God Delusion" to be simultaneously amusing, interesting and problematic. My main criticism of him---in person or in text---is that he focuses too much upon whether or not God can be proved and not enough attention (hardly any at all, in fact) upon how people relate to God and how (according to theists) God relates back. I think there is MUCH more of interest to say on that latter subject, but Dawkins makes the mistake of thinking that religious people are religious for epistemological reasons, rather than axiological. That's understandable, however; Dawkins is a scientist, not an anthropologist, sociologist or religious studies scholar.

and

Originally Posted by Runt

He actually does something that's unfortunately fairly common in the academic study of religion: attempts to view it through the lens of other academic disciplines. He's a biologist and he looks at religion like a biologist looks at a virus. The problem is, cultures do not operate in the same way organisms do...

Personally I lost interest the moment he anthropomorphized God (who made God? kind of stuff), which is really, really stupid. It shows that he is a total ignoramus in theological matters. (I'm not as nice as Runt. I call the moronic fool a moronic fool.) Moreover, he assumes absence of empirical evidence is evidence of absence.