<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.8.4 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:53:21 GMT--><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><title>The Anti-God Delusion</title><subtitle>The Anti-God Delusion</subtitle><id>http://thoughtleadership.squarespace.com/anti-god-delusion/</id><link rel="alternate" type="application/xhtml+xml" href="http://thoughtleadership.squarespace.com/anti-god-delusion/"/><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://thoughtleadership.squarespace.com/anti-god-delusion/atom.xml"/><updated>2007-09-22T14:19:59Z</updated><generator uri="http://www.squarespace.com/" version="Squarespace Site Server v5.8.4 (http://www.squarespace.com/)">Squarespace</generator><entry><title>Book by Richard Dawkins</title><id>http://thoughtleadership.squarespace.com/anti-god-delusion/2007/9/3/book-by-richard-dawkins.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://thoughtleadership.squarespace.com/anti-god-delusion/2007/9/3/book-by-richard-dawkins.html"/><author><name>Afroz Ali</name></author><published>2007-09-03T13:47:14Z</published><updated>2007-09-03T13:47:14Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-AU"><![CDATA[<p align="justify" style="text-align: justify;">I was thinking hard for a name for this topic on hand, and nothing good came up... so I thought I'd simply say it as it is- scientists who reject God, particularly with extremely weak assertions, are indeed the deluded ones.</p><p align="justify" style="text-align: justify;">Richard Dawkins provides empirical proof of that by writing a rather entertaining book &quot;The God Delusion&quot;. He provides selective and sometimes rather illogical claims as to why he <em>thinks</em> God does not exist. He uses three specific tools to make his charge:</p><div align="justify" style="text-align: justify;"><ul><li>Rudeness like you have never seen before. I will not be rude with my review and comments, but I cannot promise I will be politically correct or diplomatic;</li><li>Coming up with &quot;<strong>chance</strong>&quot; as his best proof. OK...</li><li>Attempts at using logic and rational thinking, specifically the theory of evolution, to explain his way through a maze. I will spend much of my time trying to make sense of his such attempts.<br /></li></ul></div><p align="justify" style="text-align: justify;">This book of fiction, dressed up in intellectual non-fiction deserves a thorough review and critique. I hope to be able to do that soon.<br /></p>]]></content></entry></feed>