Uff, all's OK then. Well, better too much caution than too little.
I tried to get Hitchens, but I didn't manage so far. From the fragments I've read, looks like I'd rather Dawkins' style, but I don't want to judge before I'll read more, someday. I liked also Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, maybe not so 'light' in reading as Dawkins, but interesting. And I can recommend Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained very much! A truly precious thing if one wants to consider the matter in deepened way, avoiding the popular and simplified 'oh, religion is just a comforting drug'. Where Dawkins and others focus on the social aspect, Boyer analyses the religion itself, the process of emergence of religious thinking. And he writes it in similar way like Dawkins on evolution.
Nice comm! Some time ago I admired also this: toocuteicons
no subject
I tried to get Hitchens, but I didn't manage so far. From the fragments I've read, looks like I'd rather Dawkins' style, but I don't want to judge before I'll read more, someday. I liked also Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, maybe not so 'light' in reading as Dawkins, but interesting. And I can recommend Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained very much! A truly precious thing if one wants to consider the matter in deepened way, avoiding the popular and simplified 'oh, religion is just a comforting drug'. Where Dawkins and others focus on the social aspect, Boyer analyses the religion itself, the process of emergence of religious thinking. And he writes it in similar way like Dawkins on evolution.
Nice comm! Some time ago I admired also this: