But this is just restrictive. Regardless of your own opinions you should consider all evidence. By refusing to consider such claims you close yourself off to t

But this is just restrictive. Regardless of your own opinions you should consider all evidence. By refusing to consider such claims you close yourself off to the possibility there may in fact be ways to verify them for yourself. Yet this won't ever be entertained due to bias. Perhaps some of those who claim god exists followed some reproducible method that convinced them. Ignoring the personal experience dimension would never uncover such information. Even a discussion of religion as memes, while it may be true, wouldn't make one deluded to believe in God if a way to verify its existence for oneself could be found. Ie religion spreading as a meme doesn't prove God doesn't exist. It may just be that the majority of people believe without discovering it (if it exists), but that in itself doesn't preclude its existence. Perhaps it only reveals its existence under certain circumstances for example. As to your final paragraph there seems to be a general conflation between organised religion and God. The book is the God delusion, not the organised religion delusion. It's this conflation and obvious bias that makes the book's argument weak.