In the book, Dawkins addresses the title in the first few page and explains why the term “delusion” is used and sets the context for it’s use. This largely renders the first point above meaningless.<\/p>\n

The second one, is equally irrelevant and meaningless. What authority can be granted to say there is or isn’t a form of deity? Who gave the author of the blog post the authority to challenge Dawkins’ imaginary authority? <\/p>\n

The third point hammers home the playground level of the blog post. Dawkins is a Biologist, who expects him to explain the Big Bang. What “explanation” is actually provided by the cop-out “God did it” that does anything but end further learning? <\/p>\n

All in all, and this goes for most English language blogs which rail against The God Delusion, most of the critique comes from people who have not read the book and have couched their “complaints” in the terms of a nine year old.<\/p>\n