Yet more bitter remarks from "teh' Christians

Once again, I've looked through the reviews of The God Delusion on Amazon, once again, Christians are flooding the page with angry reviews and once again, my blood is starting to boil. Same thing happens again and again: Religious people (and anyone else who has any belief in a higher being) hear about the book, they decide they don't like his opinions, as it makes their God sound irrelevant. They then decide to leave a review on Amazon. The review often has:

• A title often expressing disgust at Richard Dawkins. Often has something such as "more athiest propoganda".
• The reviewer's own opinion on Dawkins ("Once again Richard Dawkins is letting his emotions run loose").
• A bit saying that he is obviously ignoring all the points for God, and that he is being ignorent.
• A bit claiming that the reason he is against religion is that he has a closed mind.
• A final lash out at the author ("He doesn't believe in God - ok your choice Richard, but don't try and belittle those who do - and that goes for the rest of you reviewers. And as for the person that said that this book should be set in schools.....it's a good thing your not in a position to enforce that idea eh? It's a shame that there isn't a 0 stars option - or even minus numbers....because that is what this book deserves ").

The other thing I noticed about many the negative reviews is that Dawkins is considered as arrogant. This also applies to one of my Christian chums, who claims that he is arrogant and argues for the sake of it. I don't really have the rhetoric (I think I've used that word correctly) to argue back. Luckily, Dawkins has had a little help from Tom Morris, who wrote:

Dawkins criticisms are based, as any good philosophy is, on humble suppositions and, if followed, provide a devestating critique. The other thinker who does this well is none other than the Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer whose has a simple credo:

"I approach each issue by seeking the solution that has the best consequences for all affected. By 'best consequences', I understand that which satisfies the most preferences, weighted in accordance with the strength of the preferences. Thus my ethical position is a form of preference-utilitarianism"

From this, Singer argues for animal rights and wealth redistribution. What annoys his opponents the most is that they believe his positions to be based on emotion not logic, and react in kind. Dawkins' positions are held to be "arrogant", emotional and scientistic. But this shows absolute ignorance of Dawkins' positions, a reaction to his more quoted media statements and not the more delicate and philosophical questions.

If anyone disagrees with that, I'd like to know why.

Anyway, it's good that I've got my rage back. Just don't feel the same without it...