The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins (Kindle or Google Play Book) 99p
366°

The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins (Kindle or Google Play Book) 99p

28
Found 3rd Apr
Lowest price this has been. Also on Google Play (thanks ArthurDent1)

Magic takes many forms. The ancient Egyptians explained the night by suggesting that the goddess Nut swallowed the sun. The Vikings believed a rainbow was the gods' bridge to earth. These are magical, extraordinary tales. But there is another kind of magic, and it lies in the exhilaration of discovering the real answers to these questions. It is the magic of reality - science.
Community Updates

Groups

Top comments
Thank God for Dicky Dawkins.
sowotsdis7 m ago

yes a c;own indeed


A crown? Steady on, he's a great bloke but he ain't royalty!
28 Comments
Thank God for Dicky Dawkins.
yes a c;own indeed
sowotsdis7 m ago

yes a c;own indeed


A crown? Steady on, he's a great bloke but he ain't royalty!
Got it last year from The Works for 2 squid. Might still be that price or lower if you'd rather have the physical copy.
xenophon25 m ago

Got it last year from The Works for 2 squid. Might still be that price or …Got it last year from The Works for 2 squid. Might still be that price or lower if you'd rather have the physical copy.


Was it good? Or is it sitting on your pile of unread shame
Ilikehotdeals137 m ago

Was it good? Or is it sitting on your pile of unread shame



Well, I was disappointed - and strangely enough I tossed my hardback copy in the bin earlier today,
Not read this. Thanks, a worthy purchase for 99p (actually free with a 'no rush' credit )
Edited by: "gslgregory" 3rd Apr
Cheers. Bought the Audible narration to accompany it for £4.99. A significant discount on Audibles normal retail price.
A nice little book this, a nice way into science books
HedgyHoggy8 h, 16 m ago

Thank God for Dicky Dawkins.


Hes called Dick for a reason.
Ilikehotdeals15 h, 23 m ago

Was it good? Or is it sitting on your pile of unread shame



No I read it. But to be honest it is for young people, although it gave me a bit of a refresher.
PressPlay5 h, 19 m ago

Hes called Dick for a reason.


Is he well endowed?
I can't help but think that Dawkins own assertion - that Egyptians believed a goddess *literally* swallowed the Sun is more his own simplistic understanding projected onto a highly technically & scientifically advanced civilisation, that tells me more about his own naivety than it does theirs. Presumably his children's children will be telling us that people in the 20 Century believed an actual tortoise and hare organised marathons that were well documented.

I think he's one of the most intelligent plonkers I've ever heard speak.

Recently, I watched a 30 second clip on youtube of him answering the question - which came first - the chicken or the egg? 30 seconds was all he needed, much the same time as Atheists seem to need in order to explain away life the universe and everything. His answer was as overly-confident and self-assured as ever; it was the egg, because that's the only place where life can begin. The fact that chicken eggs come from chickens seemed to be a point that was lost on him. I've rarely heard him debate anyone less persuasive, articulate, empirical or scientific than himself.

It'd seem a whole lot less ironic if he wasn't on a crusade attacking people who question his materialist dogma with their heresy. Ironically, the weakness of his own ability to argue a point is what first highlighted the weaknesses in the materialist worldview.

Nice guy though : ) And maybe for all I know - he's right, but if he is, it'd be due to what he might call 'chance', rather than rigorous thinking.
Edited by: "bizzargainhunter" 4th Apr
bizzargainhunter14 h, 17 m ago

I can't help but think that Dawkins own assertion - that Egyptians …I can't help but think that Dawkins own assertion - that Egyptians believed a goddess *literally* swallowed the Sun is more his own simplistic understanding projected onto a highly technically & scientifically advanced civilisation, that tells me more about his own naivety than it does theirs. Presumably his children's children will be telling us that people in the 20 Century believed an actual tortoise and hare organised marathons that were well documented.I think he's one of the most intelligent plonkers I've ever heard speak.Recently, I watched a 30 second clip on youtube of him answering the question - which came first - the chicken or the egg? 30 seconds was all he needed, much the same time as Atheists seem to need in order to explain away life the universe and everything. His answer was as overly-confident and self-assured as ever; it was the egg, because that's the only place where life can begin. The fact that chicken eggs come from chickens seemed to be a point that was lost on him. I've rarely heard him debate anyone less persuasive, articulate, empirical or scientific than himself.It'd seem a whole lot less ironic if he wasn't on a crusade attacking people who question his materialist dogma with their heresy. Ironically, the weakness of his own ability to argue a point is what first highlighted the weaknesses in the materialist worldview.Nice guy though : ) And maybe for all I know - he's right, but if he is, it'd be due to what he might call 'chance', rather than rigorous thinking.


'his materialist dogma'. How's that materialist computer working for you? Good isn't it? You are talking complete twaddle.
Original Poster
bizzargainhunter19 h, 36 m ago

I can't help but think that Dawkins own assertion - that Egyptians …I can't help but think that Dawkins own assertion - that Egyptians believed a goddess *literally* swallowed the Sun is more his own simplistic understanding projected onto a highly technically & scientifically advanced civilisation, that tells me more about his own naivety than it does theirs. Presumably his children's children will be telling us that people in the 20 Century believed an actual tortoise and hare organised marathons that were well documented.I think he's one of the most intelligent plonkers I've ever heard speak.Recently, I watched a 30 second clip on youtube of him answering the question - which came first - the chicken or the egg? 30 seconds was all he needed, much the same time as Atheists seem to need in order to explain away life the universe and everything. His answer was as overly-confident and self-assured as ever; it was the egg, because that's the only place where life can begin. The fact that chicken eggs come from chickens seemed to be a point that was lost on him. I've rarely heard him debate anyone less persuasive, articulate, empirical or scientific than himself.It'd seem a whole lot less ironic if he wasn't on a crusade attacking people who question his materialist dogma with their heresy. Ironically, the weakness of his own ability to argue a point is what first highlighted the weaknesses in the materialist worldview.Nice guy though : ) And maybe for all I know - he's right, but if he is, it'd be due to what he might call 'chance', rather than rigorous thinking.


There's a lot of stuff you can say about Dawkins but if you think his thinking isn't rigorous and he leaves things to chance you really are losing it.
HedgyHoggy7 h, 52 m ago

'his materialist dogma'. How's that materialist computer working for you? …'his materialist dogma'. How's that materialist computer working for you? Good isn't it? You are talking complete twaddle.


Jeez really? That's your response? Besides missing the point completely...could you please explain how a computer is "materialist"?
Is all technology just materialism to you? How far does that go? Is machinery materialist too?
"Grrr materialist farmers using their ploughs! USE YOUR HANDS!!!"
EllEzDee11 h, 36 m ago

Jeez really? That's your response? Besides missing the point …Jeez really? That's your response? Besides missing the point completely...could you please explain how a computer is "materialist"?Is all technology just materialism to you? How far does that go? Is machinery materialist too? "Grrr materialist farmers using their ploughs! USE YOUR HANDS!!!"


Modern science is materialist, and produced the computer, Please point to some 'materialist dogma' that Dawkins has asserted.

Actually don't, as Philosophy Trolls are probably the most pointless subspecies in existence and I don't have the time.
HedgyHoggy12 h, 13 m ago

Modern science is materialist


That's quite a broad statement, don't you think? Never mind it being completely ungrounded...
benji6665th Apr

There's a lot of stuff you can say about Dawkins but if you think his …There's a lot of stuff you can say about Dawkins but if you think his thinking isn't rigorous and he leaves things to chance you really are losing it.


Like Dawkins, you're not particularly good at making a point, but quite good at substituting a point with personal attacks. A well made point is often more persuasive. Though clearly, personal attacks and name calling are still a persuasive enough argument to some, it seems, including you I assume.

You misinterpret my point, too btw. His belief about how this world came to be, ultimately, is "chance". His word, not mine. I didn't say he leaves things to chance, rather his belief is that this world came from nothing but chance.

If you're unable to hold a conversation, by responding to the words I actually wrote, as opposed to attacking a statement *you* made, you might struggle to compel anyone who can think. But by all means, let your ham fisted, misdirected argument compel you, and millions like you, just don't be surprised if it doesn't compel me, poppet. Xx
EllEzDee6th Apr

That's quite a broad statement, don't you think? Never mind it being …That's quite a broad statement, don't you think? Never mind it being completely ungrounded...


It is a broad statement, one which happens to be true. Stating it's completely unfounded doesn't actually change the fact. Try and make a solitary point, form an actual argument?

When you do, I'll simply respond with "that's completely ungrounded". Which no doubt will compel you.
Edited by: "bizzargainhunter" 7th Apr
EllEzDee5th Apr

Jeez really? That's your response? Besides missing the point …Jeez really? That's your response? Besides missing the point completely...could you please explain how a computer is "materialist"?Is all technology just materialism to you? How far does that go? Is machinery materialist too? "Grrr materialist farmers using their ploughs! USE YOUR HANDS!!!"


Ps computers and machinery are materialist, in fact they were, for the last few hundred years used as THE analogy of the way in which the world works, like clockwork, or a machine. Notice though that machines are built by something, or someone else, and do not simply come into existence by themselves, which yet again is a shining example of how people who can't think rigourously tend to form arguments that undermine the point they're trying to make, typically whilst thinking they support the point they're failing to make.

I've never heard a scientist deny this. I think ur on ur own there. Xx
EllEzDee5th Apr

Jeez really? That's your response? Besides missing the point …Jeez really? That's your response? Besides missing the point completely...could you please explain how a computer is "materialist"?Is all technology just materialism to you? How far does that go? Is machinery materialist too? "Grrr materialist farmers using their ploughs! USE YOUR HANDS!!!"


This comment makes literally zero sense. I like the way you start by saying the phrase "miss the point completely", then go on to miss the point completely. U make make plonkers like me feel clever. Xx
bizzargainhunter34 m ago

Ps computers and machinery are materialist, in fact they were, for the …Ps computers and machinery are materialist, in fact they were, for the last few hundred years used as THE analogy of the way in which the world works, like clockwork, or a machine. Notice though that machines are built by something, or someone else, and do not simply come into existence by themselves, which yet again is a shining example of how people who can't think rigourously tend to form arguments that undermine the point they're trying to make, typically whilst thinking they support the point they're failing to make.I've never heard a scientist deny this. I think ur on ur own there. Xx


Are you on something? I've never seen so many words with so little meaning.
Original Poster
bizzargainhunter1 h, 6 m ago

Like Dawkins, you're not particularly good at making a point, but quite …Like Dawkins, you're not particularly good at making a point, but quite good at substituting a point with personal attacks. A well made point is often more persuasive. Though clearly, personal attacks and name calling are still a persuasive enough argument to some, it seems, including you I assume.You misinterpret my point, too btw. His belief about how this world came to be, ultimately, is "chance". His word, not mine. I didn't say he leaves things to chance, rather his belief is that this world came from nothing but chance.If you're unable to hold a conversation, by responding to the words I actually wrote, as opposed to attacking a statement *you* made, you might struggle to compel anyone who can think. But by all means, let your ham fisted, misdirected argument compel you, and millions like you, just don't be surprised if it doesn't compel me, poppet. Xx


ok, I see this guy is just a troll. No more replies from me.
EllEzDee18 h, 34 m ago

Are you on something? I've never seen so many words with so little meaning.


You should buy this book.
HedgyHoggy6th Apr

Modern science is materialist, and produced the computer, Please point to …Modern science is materialist, and produced the computer, Please point to some 'materialist dogma' that Dawkins has asserted.Actually don't, as Philosophy Trolls are probably the most pointless subspecies in existence and I don't have the time.


nor do you have the capacity, machines are *the* epitome of materialism, the number 1 go-to metaphor of a materialist understanding of the world. You couldn't undermine your own point more in fewer words. Actually, don't try.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text