• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does anyone enjoy reading Dawkings books?

The God Delusion was slightly interesting, but not spectacular.


His books on biology are amazing, foremost in content, but also in language. Dawkins is a wordsmith with equals few.
 
steve s said:
Here's an animated version...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/81544dc8891216804.gif[/qimg]

Steve S
Click to expand...

Emma%20Dawkins.gif
 
qayak said:
I can completely understand why he wouldn't sign it. Not just the part about putting his name in a book he didn't write of have anything to do with but also with how he is a target for theists making lies up about what he did and why he did it.

Have you forgotten the video editing fiasco of a couple years ago? I bet he hasn't.
Click to expand...
Yes, except that the Netherlands isn't America, where people apparently care if some small town biology teacher shows someone an autograph of Dawkins on a book that is about Dawkins' PhD advisor, but not by Dawkins.

Sorry, I'm not convinced Dawkins wasn't being pompous, especially in light of the fact that his talk about Tinbergen was actually mostly about Dawkins.
But like I said, I do enjoy his books, and so did my father.
 
Last edited:
I had Dawkings sign a copy of the book "The Convernent Gene in Cromulent Evolution Delusion" by him and Hawkins and Ian Stein and Teilhard de Gould S.J.

I didn't understand a word of it, except the bit about the rabbit.
That's why I'm qualified to critique it here.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
I'm confused. Nowhere in the post you've linked you disagree that The Greatest Show on Earth is well written. The only thing you say in the post you've linked is ask for a recommendation of another Dawkins book besides the God Delusion.
Click to expand...

The only thing I say? The only thing? Did you actually read all the post I linked to ? That is not the only thing I say. I also said I found the book "heavy going", "disappointing" and I "don't like Dawkins' writing style" and "I wouldn't feel confident in recommending it to convince others or as an introduction".


therefore I neither found the book well written, accessable or enjoyable. That would seem to be obvious.
 
Last edited:
Rrose Selavy said:
The only thing I say? The only thing? Did you actually read all the post I linked to ? That is not the only thing I say. I also said I found the book "heavy going", "disappointing" and I "don't like Dawkins' writing style" and "I wouldn't feel confident in recommending it to convince others or as an introduction".
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that. Like I said, nowhere in that post you say anything about The Greatest Show on Earth. Therefore, I don't understand how that is relevant to Ross's post:

Originally Posted by RossFW
Nobodys mentioned Greatest Show on Earth which i though of as "Evolution for Dummies".

REALLY well written, accesible and enjoyable.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm not trying to argue with you nor get into nitpicky rhetorics. I'm just confused because Ross is talking about The Greatest Show on Earth, and you reply by criticizing The God Delusion.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Yes, I know that. Like I said, nowhere in that post you say anything about The Greatest Show on Earth. Therefore, I don't understand how that is relevant to Ross's post:



Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm not trying to argue with you nor get into nitpicky rhetorics. I'm just confused because Ross is talking about The Greatest Show on Earth, and you reply by criticizing The God Delusion.
Click to expand...


The post by itself is confusing, but look at the title of the thread it's in--the critique is about The Greatest Show on Earth.
 
I've placened Dawkings, though I'm yet to see if he's congrained it.
In my estimation, congrulity will be the least of his inchaingrity towards this post.

Good luck, and good sangromity.
 
mushy said:
General opinion? I don't. I think he is too converned with sounding smart as opposed to just explaining things.
Click to expand...
Yes, I very much enjoy them - especially since I listen to the audio versions, unabridged except for 'The Ancestor's Tale' which was only available in abridged. Before you dismiss his style, please do listen to him reading his books. His sincerity, enthusiasm and, of course, conviction come through clearly; I think his always courteous manner, combined with one of the very best voices for reading on to CD, will change your mind!]

Try the first chapter of 'Unweaving the Rainbow'.
 
mushy said:
General opinion? I don't. I think he is too converned with sounding smart as opposed to just explaining things. Oh and in his last book he used the same thing over and over again

a___ is a ___ is a ____ (insert any word)
Click to expand...

I read The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth cover to cover, enjoyed them, and never noticed "concern with sounding smart" nor overuse of the form "a___ is a ___ is a ____."

omg I just realized that my care to write well could be misconstrued as being "too concerned with sounding smart." I'm really just trying to be clear and avoid distracting spelling or grammatical errors, not trying to sound smart. Typos (e.g. converned) can make one sound dumb. I write lots of articles and posts, and it's just habitual. Brits are much more articulate than Americans, on average, so they sound smarter without even trying. Dawkins sounds smart because he is smart. Very smart. I don't think it's his concern.
 
Last edited:
Soapy Sam said:
I had Dawkings sign a copy of the book "The Convernent Gene in Cromulent Evolution Delusion" by him and Hawkins and Ian Stein and Teilhard de Gould S.J.

I didn't understand a word of it, except the bit about the rabbit.
That's why I'm qualified to critique it here.
Click to expand...
I listened to the post, laughed out loud, looked at the name ... and as so often happens, it's you!:D:D
 
rabbits - in the Precambrian ? oh noes

Soapy Sam said:
I had Dawkings sign a copy of the book "The Convernent Gene in Cromulent Evolution Delusion" by him and Hawkins and Ian Stein and Teilhard de Gould S.J.

I didn't understand a word of it, except the bit about the rabbit.
That's why I'm qualified to critique it here.
Click to expand...

V. good :)

The ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Jesuits, they have it all tied up. What !
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom