I’m about halfway through my copy of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. So far I agree mostly with what he has to say. If you don’t have a copy, I recommend you get one.
Finished my copy about 2 weeks ago, and I have to agree, a must read.
I found the analysis of the different arguments very good, and there quite a bit of expansion on some of the topics visited in the ‘Root of all evil?’ TV show.
I’m about to wrap up a related work, Dennett’s Breaking the Spell, and, in an effort to follow Sun Tzu’s admonition “to know one’s enemy,” am going to dip into Jonathan Eisen’s Suppressed Inventions unless my Amazon order arrives earlier than usual… 
The next edition of Eisen’s book might even deign to mention Danie Krugel.
'Luthon64
Look at those who, even atheists, who criticize his outspokenness as though he were trying to dictate what others should accept as true.They do not want to upset the apple cart! :’( :
But hypocrisy has always been one of the religionists’ blunter instruments of persuasion, pretty much irrespective of the particular creed. Here is an example, including liberal lashings of bible quotes, of a self-styled arbiter of the moral high ground smugly and self-righteously berating an abortionist over the latter’s work in Cape Town.
However, consider that god is the “giver of life” and the following facts:
That is, some 15% to 20% of foetuses are aborted, in most cases contrary to the wishes of the expectant mother, by god, which makes him by far the most callously arbitrary and murderous abortionist in human history.
'Luthon64
Where has anyone challenged his showing that the arguments for God are faulty? None can, I daresay! After thousand of years, theists have not and will not produce a valid argument for God such that here evidence of absence is absence of evidence,showing the auto-epistemic rule[ Robert C. Moore] and not the argument from ignorance.We no more need God as patent inspectors would allow a patent for a perpetual motion machine!
But Dawkins’ counterarguments to god’s existence are not new, as he himself acknowledges: he just summarises and repackages them in his own inimitable and eloquent way. Most of these pro-god arguments have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years, and just get rehashed in a new guise every so often, and again comprehensively refuted, usually in the same essential way.
Dawkins also says, later in the book (the part about where he has been invited as the token atheist to a meeting of the Templeton Foundation), that the theists’ only response is to claim that god is “outside” of science (without properly explaining this), clearly a false assertion if god in any way ever interferes or interacts with the world physically.
The philosophical counters are usually met with the “mysterious ways” reply, as though that answered anything instead of replacing much mystery with yet more mystery.
'Luthon64
;D Anacoluthon64, again how true! Anaturalists all, theists or paranormalists just rely on faith- the I just say so of credulity.They answer with that if one agrees with them no argument is needed and if one does not, no argument would help. They are mere obscurantists. They distort facts when they do use any and they use sophisms. We naturalists rely on reason and facts,trying to get the provisional truth,not the Truth. They cannot stand that we now are going after their nonsense! They would equate our trust in causation with their faith in the supernatural or the paranormal- the fallacy of equivocation. :’(