This is a post I intended to post in the book club section, but found no way to post.

Some things that AngelinaMason wrote (in the book club section) resonate with me. I too grew up in a conservative christian family, although a Protestant. Lots of things didn't make sense to me, but as a young person then, I just went with the flow and kept my mouth shut. Later as I had the opportunity to learn and grow, I abandoned Fundamentalist Christianity. They are really mixed up. But there was nothing compelling to make me abandon theism per se. Periodically I test my theist beliefs by reading alleged heavy weights such as Dawkins. So on to the God Delusion.

1. The meaning of delusion is belief in something that is impossible. So Dawkins has set himself the goal of proving that the existence of a creator god is impossible. I don't see anything in Dawkin's writing that proves such a thing. In fact it seems to be rationally coherent to believe God created the universe, while Dawkin's claims at proof are just a fairy tale.
2. The crux of his claim seems to be in the area of probability, that against all odds, the universe created itself at the time of the big bang, and somehow accident abiogenesis occurred. Is it possible? I guess so. Anything is possible. But that doesn't prove what he claims her proves, namely, that belief in a Creator God is a delusion. In order to prove his delusion thesis, he must show that it is necessary. He never gets around to demonstrating the necessity of his claim.
3. I might add here that theists sometimes suffer from the same problem as Dawkins: some claim that it is necessary God exists, but they too never demonstrate it. There are no arguments to prove the existence of God, but there are plenty to show that belief in God is reasonable. (By "reasonable" I don't mean necessary. In logic, there are possible implications and there are necessary implications. the God debates only result in possible, not necessary, implications.
4. Dawkins usually hauls out the jaded evolution argument. Charles Darwin was a christian, he went to Cambridge apparently to study for the ministry in his church. Despite atheist myths to the contrary, Darwin was not an atheist. In fact when he died, he was honored by the church with a burial in Westminster Abby. Atheists are, however, unlike to tell people about that and instead leave out facts that are inconvenient for the faith in their atheist myths, and fairy tales. the reality is, I believe, that
5. While Darwin's church honored him as a great man and scientist, fundamentalist Christians were, to say the least, appalled. Herein lies another strange issue with Dawkins: he seems to assume that all Christians are fundamentalist Christians. I don't blame him for criticizing the Fundy's as they are in my view, foolish. But Dawkins is picking on the easy targets, the light weights. They are easy to pick on, and when Dawkins does that, he acts like he is a heavy weight. he, like the Fundy's are foolish.

Although some of Dawkins beliefs are possible, they are not necessary truths, so he fails at what he promised. When he, as well as legions of atheists claim he succeeded, they're telling a tall tale they have faith in. If atheists hope to become mature critical thinkers, they need a model of greater skill and intellect than Dawkins exhibits.

One thing that inspired me to write this is AngelinaMason's post above. She's questioning her roots and I say good for her. I hope she also questions Dawkins, and doesn't just gobble it up like a good Catholic.