I got a couple of Richard Dawkins' books. He's a clearly intelligent man, writes in a nice poetic sense of english and does have some very good points to make, however he does randomly descend into angry rants at the drop of a hat. And it really gets in the way, especially in 'The greatest show on earth'. It is a good biology book, explaining in excellent detail about the evidence for evolution and how it's absurd not to believe it in the face of all this. However he could have left it at that, and it would have been a fantastic enjoyable book full of wonders and the magic of life. Instead it veers off far too often into rant-mode and can't help kicking religion at every opportunity, to the point where it actually distracts from the feel of the text, and greatly reduces the book.
In The God Dellusion, it's clear he knows a great deal about religious texts, and it really does cut in deep, showing it's flaws. However large parts of the book do go into just visious attacks and conjecture, and a strong sense of patronising those who believe. It makes some very very good points, but again his vendetta does diminish those points and it does become annoying. It could have simply been a critical text about religion, but becomes a rant. Sure nowhere near as ranting as the preachers he's been up against, but still annoying.
Also the quote 'it takes good people to do good things, bad people to do bad things, but it takes religion for good people to do bad things' was by someone else. I cant remember who, but I have the feeling it was someone during the enlightenment. Many of America's founding fathers were deeply anti-religious, which is ironic conscidering that the majority of the population seem to like the idea of a christian theocracy. Dawkins kinda adopted it.
I enjoy reading science books, physics and biology and such, so I'm prettymuch an athiest due to the overwhelming lack of scienitfic evidence. I'm not 100% certain, but then nobody really is. The universe is such a magical and wonderous place, and the idea of a god somewhat cheapens it for me. I agree with many buddhist philosophies and ideals, and also the concept of a higher level of consciousness to an extent. I do think that the strong arm tactics of the new athiest movement is it's downfall and damage the good points it can make. For a left-wing intillectualist movement, they sure seem authoritarian.