The God Delusion- Richard Dawkins

[Debbie]

Where can I get this for a reasonable price? Is buying it online my cheapest option? Is it available in bookstores in softcover?

Any reasons why I should not read this book?

//not looking to start another God debate thread :)

[Debbie]

.....and just for jabulani, who seemingly found 'God' in his dinner plate :D-


GOD SPEAKS! THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER IN HIS OWN WORDS
Author(s): Jon Smith
Publisher: Lulu Press
ISBN: 1411682769
Published: 2006
Format: Softcover
Normal Price: R272.95
Delivery: Usually within 10 working days. (Kalahari.net)

[Telkomisaloser]

E-bay has fairly cheap prices
http://tinyurl.com/y78gk4

[Debbie]

Hope no one minds if I use this thread to tak to myself and paste relevent info about this book, since maybe it will save others time should they also be interested in getting it.

Kalahari.net- http://www.kalahari.net/HOME/vsearch.asp?shop=HOME&originCountry=&lang=ENG&toolbar=none&template=kalasearch.aspx&pageNumber=1&pageSize=25&SearchText2=&combo=keyword&prodType=&SearchText=the+god+delusion&SEARCH-97.x=0&SEARCH-97.y=0

THE GOD DELUSION
Author(s): Richard Dawkins
Publisher: Bantam Press
ISBN: 0593058259
Published: 2006
Format: Softcover
Normal Price: R177.95
Delivery: Usually within 5 working days.

[Nick333]

Hope no one minds if I use this thread to tak to myself and paste relevent info about this book, since maybe it will save others time should they also be interested in getting it.

Kalahari.net- http://www.kalahari.net/HOME/vsearch.asp?shop=HOME&originCountry=&lang=ENG&toolbar=none&template=kalasearch.aspx&pageNumber=1&pageSize=25&SearchText2=&combo=keyword&prodType=&SearchText=the+god+delusion&SEARCH-97.x=0&SEARCH-97.y=0

Debbie you can get a copy at Exclusive Books for 2 bucks more.

And what possible reason could there be not to read? Read and decide for yourself.

[Debbie]

Shot Nick333. I am going to try get it today from EB. Glad they have soft-cover, didn't think they would.

Thanks for letting me know.

[hj2k_x]

Apparently it is really good. My mother said it was great. And she has a degree in Theology. I would definitely check it out

[jabulani]

.....and just for jabulani, who seemingly found 'God' in his dinner plate :D-

Ah! Thanks for thinking about me Debbie! Looks like it would be cheaper through amazon.co.uk - 273 ront is steep - I'll have to tell His Noodliness not to rip us off! :D

RAmen! and all that.

[bwana]

Where can I get this for a reasonable price? Is buying it online my cheapest option? Is it available in bookstores in softcover?

Any reasons why I should not read this book?

//not looking to start another God debate thread :)Less than r220 (incl shipping) from Amazon.com

[Debbie]

Ah! Thanks for thinking about me Debbie! Looks like it would be cheaper through amazon.co.uk - 273 ront is steep - I'll have to tell His Noodliness not to rip us off! :D

RAmen! and all that.

Heh, yeah well, enlightenment has never been cheap.

[Debbie]

Skim read the first 50 pages.

Have 'jumped' through from beginning to end in entirety.

Have read the last paragraph (habit).

Looks remarkably aligned with my worldview (? hmm).

Right, here goes....

[Highflyer_GP]

I've recently started reading it as well, it's excellent so far.

[mooK]

Richard Dawkins is pretty cool, I saw a documentary thing. He interviewed this major evangelisist in the USA and made him look like a total ass.

A few weeks ago while I was in Israel I saw on CNN that that pastor dude had admitted to deviant sexual practises, since a male prostitute had come out with his story. Great stuff. This pastor was so major he allegedly had weekly phone calls to Pres Bush.

[kilo39]

hey mooK you need to check in more often :)

So much for America's Religious Right (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=57653)

[Highflyer_GP]

Richard Dawkins is pretty cool, I saw a documentary thing. He interviewed this major evangelisist in the USA and made him look like a total ass.

A few weeks ago while I was in Israel I saw on CNN that that pastor dude had admitted to deviant sexual practises, since a male prostitute had come out with his story. Great stuff. This pastor was so major he allegedly had weekly phone calls to Pres Bush.
Yip he totally owned that guy.

That pastor is such an arrogant twit that I felt like fisting his face via my screen. He accuses Dawkins of being arrogant yet he's the one displaying arrogance!

For anybody interested, you can view a short clip here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=G5yjqFH-SUQ) from the documentary with the pastor displaying just how obnoxious evangelists can be.

The full documentary can be found here (http://www.mininova.org/tor/402681) or here (http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/840927/Dawkins_The_Root_of_All_Evil_The_God_Delusion_The_ Virus_of_Faith_2006) where Dawkins makes this guy look like the ass that he is. (NB: file is 600MB)

[PeterCH]

Maybe he 'owned' that guy but I reckon that that pastor still has more dineros in the bank than this one-hit-wonder writer. :)

Arguing religion is stupid. People should believe what they want, after all, institutionalised atheism was the religion of the Eastern Bloc for over 50 years.

[Debbie]

Maybe he 'owned' that guy but I reckon that that pastor still has more dineros in the bank than this one-hit-wonder writer. :)

Yes, and that's all that counts.


Arguing religion is stupid. People should believe what they want, after all, institutionalised atheism was the religion of the Eastern Bloc for over 50 years.

Religion, as currently practiced, is becoming very dangerous for everybody.

"Your misery and hate will kill us all" - My Chemical Romance

[Highflyer_GP]

Maybe he 'owned' that guy but I reckon that that pastor still has more dineros in the bank than this one-hit-wonder writer. :)

Arguing religion is stupid. People should believe what they want, after all, institutionalised atheism was the religion of the Eastern Bloc for over 50 years.
I doubt that he's a one-hit-wonder. He's one of the leading evolutionary biologists in the world, and currently holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. This should give you some idea about his credentials, he's not just some author who daydreams about crap to write about, but probably one of the smartest people on the planet ;)

What credentials does Ted Haggard have to show for himself apart from blindly defending a 2000 year old fairy tale?

[PeterCH]

Yes, and that's all that counts.



Religion, as currently practiced, is becoming very dangerous for everybody.

"Your misery and hate will kill us all" - My Chemical Romance

Well in the middle ages, people across the world were killing each other in the name of weal--- I mean 'religion'. We had Christians invading the ME, Muslims invading Christian Europe, for instance. That was full blown all out war. If anything, religions have become more tolerant nowadays, in the last 300 or so years. So I don't really agree with you on religions becoming dangerous for everybody. :) Religion is a good thing, I think. It brought down the Soviet Union for instance. Richard Dawkins can write his books now because in the Dark Ages the Catholic Church preserved writing in Europe. If it were not for that, we may still have been
living as savages. In India Sanskrit developed for religious writings/communications, in China the same basically. Religions are positive even from an atheist's point of view - although I'm not atheist :).

[PeterCH]

I doubt that he's a one-hit-wonder. He's one of the leading evolutionary biologists in the world, and currently holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. This should give you some idea about his credentials, he's not just some author who daydreams about crap to write about, but probably one of the smartest people on the planet ;)

What credentials does Ted Haggard have to show for himself apart from blindly defending a 2000 year old fairy tale?

Well most credible scientists do not question the existence of Christ plus or minus 2000 years ago. The Romans kept a record. Who is Ted Haggard btw?

Once again, even if Richard Dawkins is a credible scientist, he may still be a one book wonder - much like Hawking with his mainstream lay paperback. Maybe Dawkins will procure a second bestseller, but in my original reply, that was what I was alluding to, not his credentials but the ability to arise interests among the lay plebs (us). :) Dan Brown had 2 hits, AFAIK, and is currently working on a new one.

I should also point out that evolutionary biology, much like all natural sciences is a field in evolution itself. As our understanding and knowledge
increases previous theories get chucked out the window while new ones
are embraced. :)

Oh yes, there would be no Oxford without religion either. :) So in a way those fairytales which keep many people from commiting murder, rape, stealing, lying or whatnot, do have some benefits, although like everything, people can corrupt religion for money.

[Highflyer_GP]

Well most credible scientists do not question the existence of Christ plus or minus 2000 years ago. The Romans kept a record. Who is Ted Haggard btw?
Ted Haggard is the evangelical pastor who preaches to the likes of GW Bush and Tony Blair among others. He's the same one who debates against Dawkins in the documentary.



Once again, even if Richard Dawkins is a credible scientist, he may still be a one book wonder - much like Hawking with his mainstream lay paperback. Maybe Dawkins will procure a second bestseller, but in my original reply, that was what I was alluding to, not his credentials but the ability to arise interests among the lay plebs (us). Dan Brown had 2 hits, AFAIK, and is currently working on a new one.
One the contrary he's written quite a few books which were met with success. Do a search on Amazon or Kalahari and I'm sure you'll come across quite a few.



I should also point out that evolutionary biology, much like all natural sciences is a field in evolution itself. As our understanding and knowledge
increases previous theories get chucked out the window while new ones
are embraced. :)
Yeah afterall the theory of creation will never change, and it's been proven over and over again :rolleyes: I'll say it again - this is why science has succeeded so much in recent history, because of the ability to be open to criticism and change. With religion it's a one way close-minded street - either accept it their way or don't.



Oh yes, there would be no Oxford without religion either. :) So in a way those fairytales which keep many people from commiting murder, rape, stealing, lying or whatnot, do have some benefits, although like everything, people can corrupt religion for money.
It seems like you're implying that one needs religion in order to appreciate a moral value system.

Well allow me to ask you who said that anyone needs religion to be moral? It's the matter of upbringing that determines one's morals.

I think the following piece of info might give you a little clue regarding morals:

Myth 2 : "Atheists have no morals, since they don't believe in God"


What a sad world it is when people can seriously say that humans need to fear eternal damnation in order to do good. It is the one statement which at the same time stirs both anger and pity in most atheists; anger because it is a bigoted, prejudicial statement which serves no purpose except to promote intolerance, and pity because it highlights the speaker's ignorance and willingness to accept such crap without question.

At the risk of validating the question, a reply needs to be made in order to expose the speaker to the idea that what they've heard is wrong on so many dimensions. It must not be answered with anger, but with compassion.

Humans have the idea of right and wrong imbedded in them by their own brains, as well as their upbringing and society. Atheists do good, not out of fear of reprisal, but because it's the right thing to do. We value family, society, culture, and, of course, freedom. Many of us will - and have - defend these values with our lives. Examples:

1) Many Catholics make judgement calls on moral decisions against their church. For example, some use birth control or have abortions, despite what their church preaches. If these people can make moral decisions despite what their church preaches, then atheists can make similar choices without a church altogether.

2) Slavery was not only acceptable 200 years ago, it was considered a good deed by many, and defended using the bible. The bible was also used to justify the Holocaust, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition.

Why is this relevant? Because it shows that the bible can be used to defend even the most immoral and unethical ideals, and is therefore not an adequate yardstick to measure moral or ethical behavior.

3) Finally, mention bad religious people. Remember that Hitler was a religious Catholic, and that Jeffrey Dahmer said grace before he ate his victims. Mention also that one need only open a newspaper to find yet another story about allegations against priests for sexual misconduct, often with children. Don't forget our good friends Jim Baker (who swindled millions from his flock) and Jimmy Swaggart (asked for forgiveness only after being caught using prostitutes).

4) Always couple these statements with the fact that, while atheists make up 8-10% of the population at large, we only make up 1% of the population in prison. I mean, think of it, what if 8-10% of the population (on top of all the religious criminals) decided it was OK to steal, rape, and murder? We'd have chaos! These will serve to prove that religion and ethical behavior are not even slightly related.

Expect these statements to piss off the theists, and this is where you must mention that what you said is verifiable and that their statement is openly prejudicial against 25 million people. This is the opportunity to open their eyes to the fact that just because we're different from them doesn't make us inherently bad.

Taken from The Top 10 Atheist Myths (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/08/16/common-myths-about-atheists/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwayofthemind.dehumanizer.com%2F2 006%2F08%2F15%2F16-common-myths-about-atheists%2F&frame=true)

Pay particular attention to point number 4 regarding the belief systems of prisoners - how many of them are religious versus how many of them who are not. While the stats regarding prisoners refer to the stats of the USA, it would probably hold in SA too where the dominant belief system is Christianity.

Anyway I don't want to turn this into another religion thread - just thought that this needed pointing out :)

[Debbie]

Oh yes, there would be no Oxford without religion either. :) So in a way those fairytales which keep many people from commiting murder, rape, stealing, lying or whatnot, do have some benefits, although like everything, people can corrupt religion for money.

See, the way many people see it (myself included) religion does not 'keep people' from committing murder, raping, stealing, lying and whatnot. In fact, some people (myself included) tend to think that religion at the very least does nothing to stop these sorts of things; and at worst actually promotes things like this.

[PeterCH]

No you don't need to Christian or even Montheistic to be moral. However
they won't hurt and certainly help many people NOT to become murderers,
criminals - whatnot. Christian religion (and many others) have strong issues with killing, stealing,
lying etc. Those points can only act as additional social stigmas against
killing, stealing, etc. Besides it's different strokes for different folks, some
people WANT structure in their system of the understanding of their lives.
Let them have religion. If it makes them happy let it be so.
I mentioned the Soviet Union earlier, when Juri Gagarin went up into space, the Soviets had a real propaganda fest because he didn't see God up there.
In that country ATHEISM in the form of COMMUNISM became the State Religion and unlike Christianity (and most other religions) it had no "Thou Shalt Not Kill" specifics. Uncle Joe is reputed to have murdered a 100 million people through his reign. Their whole moral system went totally topsy turvy didn't it? Adolf Hitler executed Priests and Bisops who opposed him, and look
where he led. He was an atheist too, like Joe Stalin and like Pol Phot of the Khmer Rouge. In fact Hitler, Stalin and Pol Phot aimed to replace the previous Christian, Orthodox and Buddhist
beliefs with their own atheistic fable. A moral vacuum followed and mass carnage became rampant.

Science is constantly in evolution. Just because we cannot measure a creator, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Besides a plural society should have multiple points of view, some people think religious people are stupid,
others think the opposite. As long as people don't hurt each other for
geopolitical agendas ie greed, things are dandy.

[PeterCH]

See, the way many people see it (myself included) religion does not 'keep people' from committing murder, raping, stealing, lying and whatnot. In fact, some people (myself included) tend to think that religion at the very least does nothing to stop these sorts of things; and at worst actually promotes things like this.

Could you elaborate on how religion promotes all those evil things?

[Debbie]

Could you elaborate on how religion promotes all those evil things?

Peter, I worded that very carefully for accuracy. Please do not frame me out of context :)

[storm84]

Honestly, I feel that Religion wasn't meant to be. Naturally, you should be able to tell right from wrong. Religion has nothing to do with it! In fact, religion has started more wars and caused more deaths than anything else on this earth. That is a rather negative "rule" for something that is supposed to be "good". Don't you think?

[Highflyer_GP]

Peter I don't recall Hitler being Atheist :confused: And communism is most certainly not a form of Atheism, it's probably closer to being a form of religion where everybody abides by strict laws which are not open to criticism. Since the fall of the soviet union people now have a more liberal freedom in their decisions, hope you can see and appreciate the difference :)

Also I think that while it may help some people abide to a moral system, it might also give others justification in committing the very acts that they are not supposed to. They know that they could murder and rape all they wanted because as long as they accept Christ (for example) into their lives, they have a better chance of a good afterlife than a decent human being who chooses not to believe and abide to the same principles as their religion. This is the reason why 99% of prisoners are religious - they see it as a way of justifying their actions!

[PeterCH]

1) Many Catholics make judgement calls on moral decisions against their church. For example, some use birth control or have abortions, despite what their church preaches. If these people can make moral decisions despite what their church preaches, then atheists can make similar choices without a church altogether.

Catholic Church preaches abstinence as the ultimate birth control. Sadly some people lack the discipline to accomplish this. However the Church does not reject these people because of their human failings. The Church preaches the ideal, people are free to choose. The Parish priest won't shoot you if you use a condom. If people chose abstinence until marriage there would be no STDs and HIV.


2) Slavery was not only acceptable 200 years ago, it was considered a good deed by many, and defended using the bible. The bible was also used to justify the Holocaust, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition.

Slavery was also employed by non-Christians. Heck serfdom was practiced in China, Japan, India, precolonial Africa etc. However life was nowhere as bad for the serfs in Russia for instance under the Tsar as it was under Lenin and subsequently Stalin. At least you could appeal for Christian clemency to your landlord
but try that with the local Commisar and he'd have even more reasos to ship you to Siberia or execute you on the spot. When the British finally got to ban slavery in 18?? the Christian lobby had a lot to do with it. Slavery was seen as anti-Christian.

Holocaust. Most executioners of the Holocaust were hardcore Nazis, according at least to the publications which followed Nuremberg war trials and their Eastern European counterparts. Regular German Army soldiers did very little shooting of Jews, Poles and Russians. Nazi doctorine was atheistic
and very opposed to the Catholic Church, in fact the Nazis started their
pogroms by executing many Priests before they even started killing the Jews and others.

Spanish Inquisition - its not as clear cut as you may believe. For example the Inquistion came down very hard on the Cathars (who were the anarchists of the time) but for many matters, the religious courts of the time were more lenient than the Civil ones. There are many examples of defendants blashpeming in court in order to get their case transferred to an Ecclesiastic
Court instead of the Civil one. You must also remember that in those times
death and torture were employed for more crimes than now.



3) Finally, mention bad religious people. Remember that Hitler was a religious Catholic, and that Jeffrey Dahmer said grace before he ate his victims. Mention also that one need only open a newspaper to find yet another story about allegations against priests for sexual misconduct, often with children. Don't forget our good friends Jim Baker (who swindled millions from his flock) and Jimmy Swaggart (asked for forgiveness only after being caught using prostitutes).


Adolf Hitler was not a religious Catholic. He followed a Viking/German mythology seen as incompatible with Church doctrine. The other guys were thugs I guess but then again no-one is perfect. They betrayed the religions they preached. It wasn't like those religions actually gave them permissions
to do what they wanted.


4) Always couple these statements with the fact that, while atheists make up 8-10% of the population at large, we only make up 1% of the population in prison.

In the US jails are proportionately also filled with more minorities than Caucasians. Prior exposure to violence has been found to be a major
predictor of future violent behaviour, and you'll find a lot of violence
in the form or crime in poor areas, which are also areas where people attend
Churches more. However drug dealers, gangsters and other undesirables
don't attend church as often as regular members of society.

Somehow through good and bad, mankind survived with religion. Where established moral religious systems are replaced by anarchy especially in times
of conflict, the greatest acts of genocide are committed - Soviet Union, China (introduction of Communism), Cambodia, Nazi Germany etc.

[PeterCH]

Peter I don't recall Hitler being Atheist :confused: And communism is most certainly not a form of Atheism, it's probably closer to being a form of religion where everybody abides by strict laws which are not open to criticism. Since the fall of the soviet union people now have a more liberal freedom in their decisions, hope you can see and appreciate the difference :)

Also I think that while it may help some people abide to a moral system, it might also give others justification in committing the very acts that they are not supposed to. They know that they could murder and rape all they wanted because as long as they accept Christ (for example) into their lives, they have a better chance of a good afterlife than a decent human being who chooses not to believe and abide to the same principles as their religion. This is the reason why 99% of prisoners are religious - they see it as a way of justifying their actions!

Hitler did not apply Christian priciples to his dealings with the Poles, Russians, Jews and anyone else he did not agree with. His beliefs like the beliefs of the Nazi party were quite turbulent but they were in large part based on Racial superiority issues and on the old Folklore legends of Pagan Germany/Scandinavia.

Communism is a state of Atheism. The 'inventors' of Communism - Marx and Engels were atheists while the Communism practiced in the Eastern Bloc, also known as Bolshevism had at its core an atheistic belief. You couldn't for example attend church and be a party member in the most liberal of Eastern Block countries, in the least liberal you were not permitted to BREATHE and
attend Church :). In a way the enlightened writers of Communism saw Religion as "opium of the masses" and because Bolshevism accepted a view
of totalitarian control of your life (the most bizarre forms were employed in Cambodia) they did away with religion and with anyone who wanted to practice it despite the brainwashing campaigns they ran.

The muder and accept Christ is unfortunately an oversimplification, perhaps because we have so many Christian offshoots out there, some of which tend to make things too simple.

So even if SOME people lead better lives because of a longing to be in heaven, or a longing to please God, or a fear of eternal punishment,
or even a longing to be like Christ, Religion has positive merits.

:)

I must also say that we don't exist in a vacuum here. Just because someone has the intellect and morality to choose to do right from wrong, and not believe in God, doesn't mean that he acquied these
beliefs innately. They didn't just trickle into you from the ether, but are largely to do with your upbringing, your exposure to your parents, teachers, peers, authority figures etc. Since the west was founded
on Religious principles - religion was ubiquitous initially in everyday life, we can't say even the most atheist of views are not influenced on a moral level (albeit subsconsious) by religious teachings. I also said earlier that in the Dark Ages, the Church (monks and scribes) was the keeper of knowlegde, while the laiety pursued their lives with the search for success and money, it was the religious orders who preserved the ability
to read and write, the sciences and arts in countless handwritten books. These people preserved books which were mostly secular but they did preserve them. If it was not for those people, I'm not sure if we
would even be having this discussion now.

[Debbie]

However drug dealers, gangsters and other undesirables don't attend church as often as regular members of society.

Ok.

[Highflyer_GP]

Peter all I have left to say on the subject is that you are one of the people who really need to read this book. It explains things with so much more clarity than I could try by arguing on a post by post basis. While reading it, it's almost as though any questions that you have by reading a particular passage is answered in the next passage.

For example this statement

Since the west was founded on Religious principles - religion was ubiquitous initially in everyday life, we can't say even the most atheist of views are not influenced on a moral level (albeit subsconsious) by religious teachings.
is answered in the book in the following passage:

Contrary to their view, the fact that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the terms of a treaty with Tripoli, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797:

As the Government of the United States of America is not,
in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has
in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion,
or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never
have entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no
pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce
an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
countries.

Taken from the chapter entitled "SECULARISM, THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE RELIGION OF AMERICA".

[rwenzori]

However drug dealers, gangsters and other undesirables don't attend church as often as regular members of society.

Hell, I'm a fairly regular member of society and I never attend church!

[Claymore]

Well most credible scientists do not question the existence of Christ plus or minus 2000 years ago. The Romans kept a record.

The Romans were excellent record keepers. Sadly, their records don't mention Christ. Earliest record of Christ comes from decades afterwards, and outside the Bible, by hearsay only.

[Nick333]

Maybe he 'owned' that guy but I reckon that that pastor still has more dineros in the bank than this one-hit-wonder writer. :)

A very childish statement by any account. Because he conned lots of people out of their hard earned cash he is a better person? What is actually your point?

A list of books by Richard Dawkins.

* The Selfish Gene (1976, 1989, 2006) ISBN 0-19-286092-5
* The Extended Phenotype (1982, 1999) ISBN 0-19-288051-9
* The Blind Watchmaker (1986, 1991, 2006) ISBN 0-393-31570-3
* River Out of Eden (1995) ISBN 0-465-06990-8; Audio (2000) ISBN 0-7528-3985-3
* Climbing Mount Improbable (1996) ISBN 0-393-31682-3
* Unweaving the Rainbow (1998) ISBN 0-618-05673-4
* A Devil's Chaplain (2003) ISBN 0-618-33540-4
* The Ancestor's Tale (2004) ISBN 0-618-00583-8; Audio (2005) ISBN 0-7528-7321-0
* The God Delusion (2006) ISBN 0-618-68000-4; Audio (2006) ISBN 1-8465-7037-9

A list of documentaries by Richard Dawkins:

* Nice Guys Finish First
* The Blind Watchmaker
* The God Who Wasn't There
* Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief
* The Atheism Tapes
* The Root of All Evil?



Arguing religion is stupid. People should believe what they want, after all, institutionalised atheism was the religion of the Eastern Bloc for over 50 years.

People are entitled to believe what they want to believe. The suppression of this principle in the eastern bloc was of course wrong and may have led to a lot of evil, but institutionalized Christianity in Europe for the better part of a millenium led to enforced ignorance and the suppression of free thought(not to mention countless wars, pogroms against Jews and church sanctioned murder of heretics).


I also said earlier that in the Dark Ages, the Church (monks and scribes) was the keeper of knowlegde, while the laiety pursued their lives with the search for success and money, it was the religious orders who preserved the ability
to read and write, the sciences and arts in countless handwritten books. These people preserved books which were mostly secular but they did preserve them. If it was not for those people, I'm not sure if we
would even be having this discussion now.

Rofl. So the same religion that suppressed knowledge and were responsible for illiteracy should be praised for preserving it? You forget that during the dark ages the Church was very much in charge of how the laity lived there lives and what they could and could not do or think.
If it hadn't been for the churches banning of any scientific thought which contradicted its doctrine there may well have been someone like Dawkins five hundred or a thousand years ago. So thanks very much Christianity :rolleyes:

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe as long as they don't force what they believe down others throats. Religious belief especially needs to be kept separate from government and politics. As far as its place in education, it needs to be kept in religious classes as an equal to any other religion.

[ajax]

Dawkins? hmm, no. I wouldn't waste my time reading a book by someone who seems to agree with Hitler when it comes to eugenics.
See what he recently wrote to a Scottish newspaper (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html) about his views on eugenics.

This is the slippery slope that's embarked on when there is no higher moral ground in the world and every man decides for himself (a.k.a. I am my own god)

[Nick333]

Dawkins? hmm, no. I wouldn't waste my time reading a book by someone who seems to agree with Hitler when it comes to eugenics.
See what he recently wrote to a Scottish newspaper (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html) about his views on eugenics.

This is the slippery slope that's embarked on when there is no higher moral ground in the world and every man decides for himself (a.k.a. I am my own god)

Omg how could he be so evil as to suggest we debate the subject?

The actual letter:


“Eugenics may not be bad’’

By Richard Dawkins

IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous – though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.
Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from “ought” to “is” and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as “these are not one-dimensional abilities” apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn’t the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

Lifesite.net seems to be a forum for unbiased reporting...NOT.
I have read few articles that have used more emotive language.
Oh and they don't seem to know the difference between abortion and infanticide. Note: Its not that they just don't make a distinction between the two, they actually seem to think that the two terms are interchangable.

[Debbie]

ajax- Dawkins makes an excellent point. Mankind has been practising eugenics (or some version thereof) for hundreds of years. We just call it 'medicine'.

Very interesting article you link to.

But, to say that he 'agrees with Hitler' on eugenics is a bit of a stretch don't you think? It conjures up nasty associations of mass killing, abuse and torture. Dawkins certianly does not advocate this. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is quite happy to allow millions of people to be born into lives of poverty and starvation by their refusal to give the nod to contraception. Not so Godly IMHO.

As for a 'moral high ground'.... why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be subject to the dictations of people with whom we disagree? Who should rightfully take the place of 'the moral highground'?

[ajax]

I didn't say he is evil, my point is his ideas is an example of the consequences when one believes that you are only another animal species and every man can do what is right in his own eyes.

As for a moral high ground, I am not saying "The Church" should be the moral high ground, churches differ a hell of a lot, and not a single one is completely "right". Ideally, there should be only 1 moral high ground, and if everybody followed it, the world would be at peace.

[Highflyer_GP]

I didn't say he is evil, my point is his ideas is an example of the consequences when one believes that you are only another animal species and every man can do what is right in his own eyes.

I think the principle of "treat others as you would have them treat you" should apply when it comes to morality - this way we don't need a fund raising organisation in the guise of religion to tell us what morality is, we'd be able to figure it out for ourselves. It's not rocket science - don't kill anyone if you wouldn't like them to kill you.


Ideally, there should be only 1 moral high ground, and if everybody followed it, the world would be at peace.
That would take away our individualism don't you think? I wouldn't want to be a mind-controlled zombie :)

[Nick333]

I didn't say he is evil, my point is his ideas is an example of the consequences when one believes that you are only another animal species and every man can do what is right in his own eyes.

As for a moral high ground, I am not saying "The Church" should be the moral high ground, churches differ a hell of a lot, and not a single one is completely "right". Ideally, there should be only 1 moral high ground, and if everybody followed it, the world would be at peace.

I don't really understand what you mean in your first paragraph.

As to your second paragraph, well there will never be one morality even if one morality is enforced to the exclusion of others. History has shown us it does not work.
The best we can hope for is a world where human rights are considered more important than any one set of moral beliefs.

[ghoti]

Religion is a good thing, I think. It brought down the Soviet Union for instance.

Darn... and here I thought the soviet union was brought down due to economical collapse. What was I thinking? ;)

[kilps]

I have not read the book (I plan to...) ... but most of time with these sort of arguments the problem seems to be that either those arguing against religion criticise what are in fact the faults of organised religion (organised religion is still important - but in it's current form it is flawed) or they completely dismiss it because there is 'no proof'

The idea of 'proof' is that from the little evidence and signs (be it the numerous records of Christ) we see and through personal experience we can deduce that there is a good chance that there is a god (read: faith) which created what we experience today (and even that can be through scientific means ... I have never understood the pure creationist theory ...)

I know hardly anything about the subject ... but I don't like people who simply dismiss things ...


Honestly, I feel that Religion wasn't meant to be. Naturally, you should be able to tell right from wrong. Religion has nothing to do with it! In fact, religion has started more wars and caused more deaths than anything else on this earth. That is a rather negative "rule" for something that is supposed to be "good". Don't you think?

Who said that the sole purpose of religion is to tell the difference between right and wrong? :cool:

[ghoti]

This book makes great reading. From what I understand is the author wants the information to get out. There is a copy here (http://www.flashback.za.net/Richard_Dawkins_The_God_Delusion_2006.pdf).

[TELESPHORE]

The Romans were excellent record keepers. Sadly, their records don't mention Christ. Earliest record of Christ comes from decades afterwards, and outside the Bible, by hearsay only.

So you are saying that there is no record of a man condemned to the Cross by being accused by the Jews as being the king of the Jews?

Surely if a state condemns a man to death there should be a record if they were so meticulous?

Just remember C-h-r-i-s-t did not start a revolution. In fact he was very docile in stating that he has not come to be a King as men would be a king. His Kingdom is not of this earth. Now more than 2000 years later HIS enemies are still actively campaigning a war against someone that does not physically dwell with us anymore, but they fear HIM so much they go into extremes to prove that we do not have immortal souls.
I find it very amusing but tragic.

[arf9999]

So you are saying that there is no record of a man condemned to the Cross by being accused by the Jews as being the king of the Jews? I think that is about it.



Surely if a state condemns a man to death there should be a record if they were so meticulous? I think that is Claymore's point.


Just remember C-h-r-i-s-t did not start a revolution. In fact he was very docile in stating that he has not come to be a King as men would be a king. His Kingdom is not of this earth. Now more than 2000 years later HIS enemies are still actively campaigning a war against someone that does not physically dwell with us anymore, but they fear HIM so much they go into extremes to prove that we do not have immortal souls. You're missing the point.. again. Atheists are not Christ's enemies... They do not believe that he is divine. Simple. Christ is not doing anything right now, he's dead. The Church is though. Two different entities.


I find it very amusing but tragic. Yes it is, isn't it?

[Highflyer_GP]

Telesphore one cannot currently disprove the existence of a man, or God for that matter, however that doesn't mean that they existed. But we can state that there's a very large chance that they don't exist. Just because science cannot answer many of these questions right now, doesn't mean that an ancient holy text can.

Using Bertrand Russell's teapot example - he asked us to imagine a teapot in orbit around the sun. You can't disprove the existence of the teapot. Does this mean that you believe there's a teapot orbiting the sun just because you can't disprove it? If you don't then you're a teapot atheist ;) The concept of a personal God is no different than the teapot. People can claim to have saw the teapot, does this mean that they're correct in making a record of the event and 2000 years later everybody is correct in believing in the teapot?

If you cannot disprove something, it doesn't mean that it exists. However you can state with a fair degree of certainty that it doesn't.

[TELESPHORE]

I think that is about it.


You're missing the point.. again. Atheists are not Christ's enemies... They do not believe that he is divine. Simple. Christ is not doing anything right now, he's dead. The Church is though. Two different entities.



While you might try and mock:

http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/


Has it ever crossed your minds that how such a hush can be made about a person who did not exist, but was promised to exist and stopped to being promised?

If your soul has accepted finite existence, why bother trying to prove the opposite? Atheism does not look very attractive at all. It must be very lonely.

The arguments send out does not impress me at all and so not Billions of other people on earth. Atheism is indeed a grim and lonely picture.

The fever with which people advocate atheism is in fact so similar to religion also. A religion based on the non existence of our eternal souls. There seems to be no difference in the faith atheists has in their belief than how Islam, Christian, Buddhism or any other belief has faith.

And no Christ is not dead - he lives!!!!!!!!!!

[Highflyer_GP]

I think I should apologise - earlier I stated that Dawkins made Pastor Haggard look rather silly. After watching the documentary again today, it was in fact Rabbi Gluck.

[arf9999]

While you might try and mock:

http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/ Which serves to prove Claymore's point. There are no Roman records from that time. All of the accounts are from decades and centuries after Christ's crucification, as is most of the New Testament. The are no accounts from that time.



Has it ever crossed your minds that how such a hush can be made about a person who did not exist, but was promised to exist and stopped to being promised?

If your soul has accepted finite existence, why bother trying to prove the opposite? Atheism does not look very attractive at all. It must be very lonely.

The arguments send out does not impress me at all and so not Billions of other people on earth. Atheism is indeed a grim and lonely picture.

The fever with which people advocate atheism is in fact so similar to religion also. A religion based on the non existence of our eternal souls. There seems to be no difference in the faith atheists has in their belief than how Islam, Christian, Buddhism or any other belief has faith.

And no Christ is not dead - he lives!!!!!!!!!!

No 1. I do not believe that "souls" exist.
No 2. Why do I need to have a supernatural entity to define my existence?
No 3. I never said that Christ did not exist. I said that he was not divine. I said that God does not exist. Please keep track.
No 4. The fever with which atheism is advocated is nothing like the rabid evangelism of Christians. In general atheists don't make much noise (more's the pity). It just seems that way because they tend to make a lot of noise when people say stupid or ignorant things.

[Edwe]

arf9999, I am offended by what you are saying and I think that you are very stubborn and narrow-minded. Read this please and explain all of it away:

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

[ghoti]

The fever with which people advocate atheism is in fact so similar to religion also. A religion based on the non existence of our eternal souls.


Dont be silly. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour.

[Highflyer_GP]

arf9999, I am offended by what you are saying and I think that you are very stubborn and narrow-minded. Read this please and explain all of it away:

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

I wouldn't say that he's narrow-minded, I would say that he's willing to be open to correction if you can provide a better, more reasonable answer. Religion is narrow-minded in that you have to have faith in their point of view which isn't open to correction regardless of whether you can provide a better answer.

[arf9999]

arf9999, I am offended by what you are saying and I think that you are very stubborn and narrow-minded. Read this please and explain all of it away:

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

I'm sorry that you're offended. What did I say that was offensive? In return I must say that I'm offended by your calling me narrow minded - I really don't think that it is one of my faults. I don't see anything wrong with being stubborn when I am sure of my position. Nobody has posted anything to make me change my mind.

Okay here's my response (but I do suggest that you read the book that this thread is discussing - Dawkins is a much better communicator):

Statement 1 from your link. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
No, it doesn't. In fact, this argument is self defeating. If the complexity of the universe requires that some intelligent being would have to create it and sustain it, how complex would that being have to be? And if the being was so complex, then he could not have just come about, he would have to be created, by another, even more complex being, perhaps? The other "proofs" cited are meaningless... the earth is not perfect habitat for life because it is designed that way. Life evolved because of, and to suit the environment. The article confuses cause and effect.

Statement 2: Does God exist? The human brain's complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it.
See my explanation of the self defeating argument above.

Statement 3: 3. Does God exist? "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.
Why? All pro-creationists and theists seem to be hung up on the impossibility of life etc. existing due to chance or random occurances. This really is due to a misunderstanding of probability theory: "chance" is a poor term. I'm not going to try to explain it here (I lack the statistical language), but I do suggest that you read "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Dawkins, who explains the concepts in very easy to understand manner. In a very simple sense, the probability of an event occurring, will always increase over long periods of time, so something that is regarded as impossible (generally just really improbable), can tend towards probable over time.

Statement 4: 4. Does God exist? To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God.
Well, yes. Lots of people believe in UFO abductions, and I'm prepared to ignore them... why should religion be any different? There are millions of Hindus, who believe in multiple gods, but the Christians ignore their belief... The statement is so naive, that I can't actually believe that it was in the article.

Statement 5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
No, I don't know anything of the kind. They're kinda scraping the barrel now.

Statement 6. 6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, ***** Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us.
What? Tell that to Osama... Or the Dalai Lama... or your local Rabbi.

[Debbie]

arf999999999, not sure here, but I think Edwe was poking fun at others....

//cosmic security blanket still intact in the spiritual halfway house :)

[arf9999]

arf999999999, not sure here, but I think Edwe was poking fun at others....

//cosmic security blanket still intact in the spiritual halfway house :)

*****, really? After I typed that rant? I almost hope not :)

PS. I think your keyboard is broken... :D

[Highflyer_GP]

Debbie after reading your previous posts on the subject, as well as about 100 pages of the book so far, I think it's safe to say that maybe you're a Pantheist? Meaning that one doesn't believe in a personal God. Rather what people refer to as a conscious God, Pantheists instead state that God is the universe and all it's elements and laws. However they don't pray to this God because it doesn't make sense to pray to the laws of gravity for instance :D

You're in good company though, Einstein was a Pantheist too ;)

[NewsFlash]

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html
http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm
http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html



I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.


"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

[Highflyer_GP]

Ermm ok Pupa, what exactly are you trying to say?

[NewsFlash]

Ermm ok Pupa, what exactly are you trying to say?


:confused:

[Edwe]

I didn't realise my statement was going to cause so much fuss... sorry @ arf9999, I didn't mean to insult you at all. Reflecting on my post now, I could have chosen a more tactful word than "narrow-minded" - what I meant to say was that you are stubborn in your support for atheism. Sorry again. As a Christian, I do, however, take offense from your argument, and I will not apologise for that.

By the way, I have read the book. Not to say the book is bad, but I do not particularly like Dawkins.

Getting back to the argument: how and why would you say the universe is able to exist at all then? If it was not created, why would it just pop into existence by itself?

[Debbie]

Debbie after reading your previous posts on the subject, as well as about 100 pages of the book so far, I think it's safe to say that maybe you're a Pantheist? Meaning that one doesn't believe in a personal God. Rather what people refer to as a conscious God, Pantheists instead state that God is the universe and all it's elements and laws. However they don't pray to this God because it doesn't make sense to pray to the laws of gravity for instance :D

You're in good company though, Einstein was a Pantheist too ;)

HFGP, Rtkootnir pointed out the Spinoza's pantheism thing to me several weeks ago - I have seen it explained in contradictory ways so I still have a lack of understanding of it....and a few problems with it (not the free-will thing), but generally that's closer to what I 'believe'. I think you and I are going to have a lot to talk about when we have both finished with this book!

[Highflyer_GP]

Getting back to the argument: how and why would you say the universe is able to exist at all then? If it was not created, why would it just pop into existence by itself?
Using this argument, you'd then have to ask who created the creator? And if the response is that he "just existed" (as is usually the response), why then is it not possible for the universe to have "just existed"?

[Debbie]

Getting back to the argument: how and why would you say the universe is able to exist at all then? If it was not created, why would it just pop into existence by itself?

This is something I can't quite get over....

[NewsFlash]

THERES ALWAYS A PARADOX


Holt vs. Dawkins -- 2: Complexity
In his review of Richard Dawkins' attack on religion, Jim Holt raises an interesting question about complexity and simplicity. Holt says Dawkins relies on the premise that:

a creator is bound to be more complex, and hence improbable, than his creation (you never, for instance, see a horseshoe making a blacksmith).
By this logic, God would be more complex than the universe He created. But the whole point of evolution Dawkins says, according to Holt, is that "the simple can give rise to the complex" -- not visa versa. Hence, the complex, God, couldn't have come before the (relatively) simple, the universe.

Here is Holt's response to this use of evolution to dismiss God as the creator:

Not all scientific explanation follows this model. In physics, for example, the law of entropy implies that, for the universe as a whole, order always gives way to disorder; thus, if you want to explain the present state of the universe in terms of the past, you are pretty much stuck with explaining the probable (messy) in terms of the improbable (neat).
Doesn't Holt have a point here -- even if something as improbable as God may seem too improbable to imagine?

[Edwe]

Using this argument, you'd then have to ask who created the creator? And if the response is that he "just existed" (as is usually the response), why then is it not possible for the universe to have "just existed"?

Herein lies the problem. You're just using my reasoning in reverse, so if I reverse it again: if it's possible for the universe to "just exist", why is it not possible for God to "just exist" and have created the universe? And then you can use the exact same reasoning to win the argument back and we can continue like this until Judgement Day (if you believe in that).

Personally, I believe in God with all my heart and no-one will convince me otherwise, under any circumstances. It doesn't seem if I will be able to convince any of the other forumites to see things my way, so it's pointless for me to continue debating. I can't say it hasn't been interesting, but I think I should rather avoid debates on religion in the future ;)

[Highflyer_GP]

Herein lies the problem. You're just using my reasoning in reverse, so if I reverse it again: if it's possible for the universe to "just exist", why is it not possible for God to "just exist" and have created the universe? And then you can use the exact same reasoning to win the argument back and we can continue like this until Judgement Day (if you believe in that).

Personally, I believe in God with all my heart and no-one will convince me otherwise, under any circumstances. It doesn't seem if I will be able to convince any of the other forumites to see things my way, so it's pointless for me to continue debating. I can't say it hasn't been interesting, but I think I should rather avoid debates on religion in the future ;)
Precisely, we could go around in circles forever. However it doesn't mean that because something cannot currently be disproved that it has to exist. We can however state with a fair degree of accuracy and reason that it doesn't. Refer to Bertrand Russell's teapot example that I mentioned earlier in the thread ;)

However I don't think that a healthy is necessarily a bad thing as long as it doesn't get personal. Both sides have alot to learn from each other.

[NewsFlash]

Base your whole outlook on life and religion on a teapot, which is an human invention, orbiting the sun?

[Highflyer_GP]

Pupa you're missing the point, read the analogy properly before jumping to a biased conclusion :) The analogy could just as easily have used a rat or an apricot.

[Debbie]

chicken/egg

[NewsFlash]

Pupa you're missing the point, read the analogy properly before jumping to a biased conclusion :) The analogy could just as easily have used a rat or an apricot.

:confused: What are you on about?
On searching ... this? http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=749139&highlight=pupa#post749139
or
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=749022&highlight=pupa#post749022
or
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=773292&highlight=pupa#post773292
Goodness, I sound like him? He really must have had a real effect on you to have such paranoia! :confused:

[Highflyer_GP]

:confused: What are you on about?
On searching ... this? http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=749139&highlight=pupa#post749139
or
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=749022&highlight=pupa#post749022
or
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=773292&highlight=pupa#post773292
Goodness, I sound like him? He really must have had a real effect on you to have such paranoia! :confused:
Answer the rest of the question please ;) Whether you're Pupa or Newsflash is irrelevant to the discussion.

[NewsFlash]

Answer the rest of the question please ;) Whether you're Pupa or Newsflash is irrelevant to the discussion.

What question?

[Highflyer_GP]

Regarding the analogy - my response to your (false) claim that I base my world view on a man-made invention

[NewsFlash]

Regarding the analogy - my response to your (false) claim that I base my world view on a man-made invention

I still do not see any question in that post, just a comment, as I commented on the teapot example, I did not mean to make such a claim on your behalf that you base your world on that bad analogy. Anything other than that analogy example may have been different if it was not so utterly stupid, or more of a joke towards theists. I am with Debbie2 on this, undecided, but will not take this Dawkins serious at all. Concerning Einstein he could not decide what he was Atheist or pantheist as he said he is none of the two but he was definately not a theist (I though he was) like his study mate Velikovsky, who wrote Worlds in Collision.

[Highflyer_GP]

It's only a bad analogy if you can't see the relevance of the point it tries to make. If you're undecided, it means that you're open to possibilities - at the moment it doesn't really seem this way.

[NewsFlash]

It's only a bad analogy if you can't see the relevance of the point it tries to make. If you're undecided, it means that you're open to possibilities - at the moment it doesn't really seem this way.

How and where did I state a fixed view on this. That's what you assumed from my posts. As far as I am concerned this debate have been going for so many thousands of years and will not stop now or in the near future. I believe there is an intelligent force or being that designed or manipulated Darwin's nature to bring us where we are. Nobody can prove or disprove it. Some believe that is a GOD whatever he is and Christians believe in the profit Christ who existed according to ancient scrolls, there is no denial of that, who is the "son" or profit send by God, Muslims have their own version of the "real" profit. There is a lot our scientists do not know yet and are exploring, which comes to news daily like living microbes and anti-matter, etc. So we cannot conclude anything until the facts are on the table but we can hope and believe! That is the power of the human mind. Maybe we can even soon create life from "nothing" as science progress or even overcome ageing and natural death, who knows! I just like to make up my own mind and will not be prescribed by anyone, neither preacher nor pauper.

[arf9999]

THERES ALWAYS A PARADOX


Holt vs. Dawkins -- 2: Complexity
In his review of Richard Dawkins' attack on religion, Jim Holt raises an interesting question about complexity and simplicity. Holt says Dawkins relies on the premise that:

a creator is bound to be more complex, and hence improbable, than his creation (you never, for instance, see a horseshoe making a blacksmith).
By this logic, God would be more complex than the universe He created. But the whole point of evolution Dawkins says, according to Holt, is that "the simple can give rise to the complex" -- not visa versa. Hence, the complex, God, couldn't have come before the (relatively) simple, the universe.

Here is Holt's response to this use of evolution to dismiss God as the creator:

Not all scientific explanation follows this model. In physics, for example, the law of entropy implies that, for the universe as a whole, order always gives way to disorder; thus, if you want to explain the present state of the universe in terms of the past, you are pretty much stuck with explaining the probable (messy) in terms of the improbable (neat).
Doesn't Holt have a point here -- even if something as improbable as God may seem too improbable to imagine?
The law of entropy, as you call it, (i.e. the second law of thermodynamics) doesn't actually say what Holt claims according to your post - it is always important to remember that the law is only valid in an isolated system. Holt evidently claims that the universe as a whole is neat and ordered. Nothing could be further from the truth, the universe is not ordered other than in the way that it follows physical laws (a'la Newton, Einstein and Quantum theory). In fact the universe is not neat, it is extremely messy in comparison to the theoretical origin of a singularity.

[Edwe]

The problem with many atheists, at least from a theist's point of view, is the fact that atheists tend to try to classify God in terms of our basic understanding of science, fail miserably, and hence conclude that God cannot exist.

I do not believe that our understanding of science is nearly comprehensive enough to use it as a means to try to prove or disprove the existence of God.

After all, less then 200 years ago, you would have been thought crazy for believing that heavier than air flight is possible. After all, it didn't seem to make any scientific sense: objects heavier than air fall. Yet we're accomplishing the "impossible" on a daily basis now.

Two centuries ago, our understanding of science couldn't even allow for flight and now it should, by some miraculous development, be able to allow for the existence of God, the most complex being imaginable (or unimaginable)? Thinking so would be naive.

[Claymore]

So you are saying that there is no record of a man condemned to the Cross by being accused by the Jews as being the king of the Jews?

Surely if a state condemns a man to death there should be a record if they were so meticulous?


Exactly. Also, there were things mentioned in the Gospels that would seem to be extremely unlikely, given our knowledge of how the Romans ruled Judea.

[arf9999]

The problem with many atheists, at least from a theist's point of view, is the fact that atheists tend to try to classify God in terms of our basic understanding of science, fail miserably, and hence conclude that God cannot exist.Understanding of Science is not the point. Science is the tool that allows us to understand the world. Using the Scientific method, we can hypothesize on issues that are very difficult to prove or disprove, but we can still create theories that are consistent with the available evidence. The fact is that "God" provides no evidence, in order to create the hypothesis or theory, and therefore we have to state that the likeliness of God existing is around the same as that of a giant turtle that holds universe on its back, or jabulani's flying spaghetti monster. None of these is more likely than the other.


I do not believe that our understanding of science is nearly comprehensive enough to use it as a means to try to prove or disprove the existence of God. "Knowledge of science" is a misnomer, "Science" is a way of thinking, not just a repository of knowledge. And using this way of approaching the problem, it is clear that the likeliness of God existing is very, very small.


After all, less then 200 years ago, you would have been thought crazy for believing that heavier than air flight is possible. After all, it didn't seem to make any scientific sense: objects heavier than air fall. Yet we're accomplishing the "impossible" on a daily basis now. Rubbish, heavier than air flight has been observed on a daily basis for millions of years. Humans have always known that it is possible, we only developed the engineering to make it possible for humans relatively recently.


Two centuries ago, our understanding of science couldn't even allow for flight and now it should, by some miraculous development, be able to allow for the existence of God, the most complex being imaginable (or unimaginable)? Thinking so would be naive.Your analogy is flawed. We have known about flight for a long time, and we have evidence that it is possible. There is no evidence of God.

I've said this in another thread, but here goes again. "God did it" is lazy thought, taking something that we cannot explain adequately and, instead of examining the phenomena until we do understand it, standing back and saying that it is miraculous and that some supreme being made it so. How does this differ from savages worshipping the Sun for bringing warmth?

[Claymore]

I do not believe that our understanding of science is nearly comprehensive enough to use it as a means to try to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Firstly, to disprove something, you need some form of evidence, something more than a "because I say so". Secondly, when specific claims relating to the real world are made, it's easy to examine these and prove or disprove them.


After all, less then 200 years ago, you would have been thought crazy for believing that heavier than air flight is possible. After all, it didn't seem to make any scientific sense: objects heavier than air fall. Yet we're accomplishing the "impossible" on a daily basis now.

Two centuries ago, our understanding of science couldn't even allow for flight and now it should, by some miraculous development, be able to allow for the existence of God, the most complex being imaginable (or unimaginable)? Thinking so would be naive.

You choose a poor example. The knowledge of heavier than air flight has been discussed for centuries, if not millennia. Take a look at the tale of Icarus, for example. Then there are the flying Chinese toys, and Leonardo's drawings. You see, people have always been able to see that heavier than air flight is entirely possible (just look out of the window); we've been waiting for technology to catch up.

[fivelza]

Where can I get this for a reasonable price? Is buying it online my cheapest option? Is it available in bookstores in softcover?

Any reasons why I should not read this book?

//not looking to start another God debate thread :)

Debbie, could you please post your views once you are done with the book...thanks.

A lot of what is being discussed has been raised here: http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=58920

[Edwe]

You choose a poor example.

I admit, it was a bad analogy.


Firstly, to disprove something, you need some form of evidence, something more than a "because I say so".

How about "because 40 per cent of the world population (75% in the United States, arguably one of the most scientifically advanced nations in the world), including myself, as well as countless people for thousands of years say so based on historical events and records, of which many can still be verified today".

For interest's sake, I noticed people were having almost exactly the same debate here:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=10612&st=15&#entry145294

and someone even used the same analogy as I did (complete coincidence!)

Henceforth, I will abstain from taking part in religious debates. I will not reply to any criticism or comments on this post.

[Edwe]

Debbie, could you please post your views once you are done with the book...thanks.


//not looking to start another God debate thread :)

Debbie didn't seem to want a debate to begin with :eek:

[fivelza]

Debbie didn't seem to want a debate to begin with :eek:

No not debate, I am interested to know if it is a worthwhile read...perhaps read as post your views of the book then :)

I'm not the one debating in this thread ;)

[Edwe]

No not debate, I am interested to know if it is a worthwhile read...perhaps read as post your views of the book then

I'm not the one debating in this thread ;)

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your post. This thread is making me paranoid and edgy.

[Debbie]

I'm not trying to argue or debate, but I am interested in exploring the various ideas that are out there....which I spose is a bit hard to do without some kind of debate, so my bad.

fivelza, if you are that interested.... heh.

My major problem is that while I am not what Dawkins refers to as a 'theist', I am also not exactly a 'pantheist' nor an 'atheist' in the strictest terms. When it comes down to it, I believe in spirit- but what this is, how this manifests, it's relationship with the physical universe (to what extent are they concurrent?), what the nature of it is, the chicken/egg, alpha/omega questions, and the relationship to 'human beings' - these are things I am working on.

Having read what Dawkins says about 'Einsteinian religion' - I would fall into this category I would think....but it's a very very vague category it seems.

[fivelza]

I'm not trying to argue or debate, but I am interested in exploring the various ideas that are out there....which I spose is a bit hard to do without some kind of debate, so my bad.

fivelza, if you are that interested.... heh.

My major problem is that while I am not what Dawkins refers to as a 'theist', I am also not exactly a 'pantheist' nor an 'atheist' in the strictest terms. When it comes down to it, I believe in spirit- but what this is, how this manifests, it's relationship with the physical universe (to what extent are they concurrent?), what the nature of it is, the chicken/egg, alpha/omega questions, and the relationship to 'human beings' - these are things I am working on.

Having read what Dawkins says about 'Einsteinian religion' - I would fall into this category I would think....but it's a very very vague category it seems.

It is no secret that I am a Christian, so my interest lies in understanding how our faith is being challenged and being prepared to respond appropriately. Just the title would put most Christians off ;)

[Claymore]

How about "because 40 per cent of the world population (75% in the United States, arguably one of the most scientifically advanced nations in the world), including myself, as well as countless people for thousands of years say so based on historical events and records, of which many can still be verified today".

Therefore the tenets of Hinduism, Islam and Chinese tradional religion are correct too, because lots of people believe in them?

Being popular does not mean being correct.

As for historical events and records...I hope you aren't referring to the Bible, because there's a lot in there that simply cannot be verified historically.

[Debbie]

Well I see the bible as something, er, 'special'... the imperfect articulation of parts of this thing I refer to as 'spirit'... yet I would NOT call myself a christian. Go figure!

Yes yes, it's all very confusing. "A Deeply Religious Non-Believer" - heh, sounds about right.

[Highflyer_GP]

Lots of people are spiritual but not religious.

[Debbie]

Lots of people are spiritual but not religious.

I have trouble making the distinction in word- language is cumbersome and it is so easy to fall into 'religious' discourse.

HFGP, here's a q, where do you stand on this?

[Geriatrix]

I stumbled upon this clip and thought of this thread.

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/dawkins-theory-p1.php

[nthdimension]

Atheism does not look very attractive at all. It must be very lonely.

Atheism is indeed a grim and lonely picture.
It is the only true path of liberation. It is light where religion is darkness.


And no Christ is not dead - he lives!!!!!!!!!!
So he didn't die for our sins?

[Highflyer_GP]

I have trouble making the distinction in word- language is cumbersome and it is so easy to fall into 'religious' discourse.

HFGP, here's a q, where do you stand on this?

Well I used to be confused as well - but I guess being confused is the first step to breaking out of the religion barrier so it's not necessarily a bad thing. A ton of reading and three years later I guess I can say that I would regard myself as Agnostic-Atheist (which is a branch of Agnosticism) or a weak-Atheist. Basically it means that on current evidence, we don't know enough to prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of God(s). However given what we know thus far, and applying logical reasoning and the laws of statistics, we can say with a fairly large certainty that a personal God or creator doesn't exist, therefore I choose not to believe in a God.

I don't really have a problem with Einsteinian beliefs where he says that he doesn't believe in a personal God but rather that God is the universe and all it's laws. However my main gripe is that this is open to lots of misinterpretation (I think Dawkins mentioned this in the first chapter) where people take Einstein out of context - just because he used the word 'God' in his beliefs, I don't think that he really meant it in a way in which he justified the existence of a personal God or creator, but rather in a way to say that what some people call God he calls the universe. I think maybe choosing to be a Naturalist may help clear up some of the confusion surrounding Pantheism or the God of Spinoza, as it's essentially the same thing but substituting the word 'God' (which is the reason for confusion in the first place) with the word 'nature'.

Regarding spirituality and the like, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a bad thing if it helps you bring a sense of calmness to yourself. For example meditating in wide-open spaces might certainly help achieve this, and there's nothing really supernatural about it.

[kilps]

Using this argument, you'd then have to ask who created the creator? And if the response is that he "just existed" (as is usually the response), why then is it not possible for the universe to have "just existed"?
Um isn't the argument that it is incomprehensible by human minds?

The problem with many atheists, at least from a theist's point of view, is the fact that atheists tend to try to classify God in terms of our basic understanding of science, fail miserably, and hence conclude that God cannot exist.

I do not believe that our understanding of science is nearly comprehensive enough to use it as a means to try to prove or disprove the existence of God.

ha! exactly my point - use an analogy of, let's say, being able to communicate instantly over long distances - the analogy is irrelevant but the idea is important (in fact that attacking of the analogy is a sign of lack of evidence against the idea ;))

[Highflyer_GP]

Um isn't the argument that it is incomprehensible by human minds?

Hence it's illogical - nothing can just "be", not even God. This is what religion relies upon, the unknown. How much longer they can drag this out remains to be seen.


ha! exactly my point - use an analogy of, let's say, being able to communicate instantly over long distances - the analogy is irrelevant but the idea is important (in fact that attacking of the analogy is a sign of lack of evidence against the idea ;))

As opposed to the tons of evidence which support the idea? I'm assuming that you're comparing the current lack of evidence for God to deduce that he exists? Using the same circular logic, I could ask you to present evidence (not assumptions) that he does exist? ;)

[kilps]

Hence it's illogical - nothing can just "be", not even God. This is what religion relies upon, the unknown. How much longer they can drag this out remains to be seen.
Well the whole point is that it is supposed to be illogical ... hence it's an impossible point to argue ;)


As opposed to the tons of evidence which support the idea? I'm assuming that you're comparing the current lack of evidence for God to deduce that he exists? Using the same circular logic, I could ask you to present evidence (not assumptions) that he does exist? ;)
No - my point is that the so called lack of evidence could be proven wrong ... there is a lot of evidence, it just depends on if you believe it :cool:

[Highflyer_GP]

Well the whole point is that it is supposed to be illogical ... hence it's an impossible point to argue ;)

Well in that case, I may consider worshiping Jabulani's Flying Spaghetti Monster, are you going to tell me that he doesn't exist? Afterall since it's an impossible point to argue, that means he must exist right?

[IanC]

It is the only true path of liberation. It is light where religion is darkness.

They could try agnosticism

[kilps]

Well in that case, I may consider worshiping Jabulani's Flying Spaghetti Monster, are you going to tell me that he doesn't exist? Afterall since it's an impossible point to argue, that means he must exist right?

no - but the argument that "how did God get there?" is impossible to argue ... there are still other points to argue

oh and btw - you seriously are nitpicking now

[Highflyer_GP]

no - but the argument that "how did God get there?" is impossible to argue ... there are still other points to argue

oh and btw - you seriously are nitpicking now
My apologies, I was nitpicking in response to somebody who was nitpicking :p

[nthdimension]

They could try agnosticism
Essentially the same thing.

[Nick333]

It is no secret that I am a Christian, so my interest lies in understanding how our faith is being challenged and being prepared to respond appropriately. Just the title would put most Christians off ;)

Just a thought on the nature of faith:

Faith in a religious context would mean believing without evidence or despite evidence to the contrary. So religious faith, by definition, is perpetually challenged. Responding to a challenge to faith would therefore be, a) unnecessary and b) self-defeating.

[IanC]

Essentially the same thing.

... as atheism??? Cool next lets solve the ME crisis.

[Debbie]

...therefore I choose not to believe in a God.

Not believing in God as a conscious choice.....?? Hmmm. :rolleyes:


I don't really have a problem with Einsteinian beliefs where he says that he doesn't believe in a personal God but rather that God is the universe and all it's laws. However my main gripe is that this is open to lots of misinterpretation (I think Dawkins mentioned this in the first chapter) where people take Einstein out of context - just because he used the word 'God' in his beliefs, I don't think that he really meant it in a way in which he justified the existence of a personal God or creator, but rather in a way to say that what some people call God he calls the universe. I think maybe choosing to be a Naturalist may help clear up some of the confusion surrounding Pantheism or the God of Spinoza, as it's essentially the same thing but substituting the word 'God'... with the word 'nature'.

I disagree strongly. I think Einsteinian religion is a heck of a lot more complicated than what you have presented here :)


Regarding spirituality and the like, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a bad thing if it helps you bring a sense of calmness to yourself. For example meditating in wide-open spaces might certainly help achieve this, and there's nothing really supernatural about it.

No offense HFGP, but I don't think you've been doing it right ;)

//pls don't take offense to my disagreeing with you - rather disagree with me back!

[fivelza]

Just a thought on the nature of faith:

Faith in a religious context would mean believing without evidence or despite evidence to the contrary. So religious faith, by definition, is perpetually challenged. Responding to a challenge to faith would therefore be, a) unnecessary and b) self-defeating.


Fair enough, perhaps respond is then the incorrect word. What I am trying to say is that it, through many of these posts there is a whole world of stuff I haven't even began to consider or understand. Will it weaken my faith...no..but it will enable me to also answer questions that do potentially challenge the bible as an example. I am a great believer in 'Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood'....well at least I try to :o

[BCO]

Just finished reading The God Delusion today. Good book. Would love to read this whole thread and post my thoughts, but unfortunately the Internet cafe I'm in in Zambia charges R30 per 15 mins and is slow as hell.

Anyway, highly recommended reading from one of the greatest minds of our time.

[nthdimension]

... as atheism??? Cool next lets solve the ME crisis.
You're either a theist or an atheist. Agnostic relates to knowledge. People who call themselves agnostic are essentially a type of atheist.

[Highflyer_GP]

Not believing in God as a conscious choice.....?? Hmmm.

Yeah :) Given what we know, we can state with a fair degree of accuracy that he doesn't exist. At least not an intelligent, all-knowing, all-powerful creator.

Unless you're saying that believing in a God as an unconscious choice makes more sense? :p



I disagree strongly. I think Einsteinian religion is a heck of a lot more complicated than what you have presented here

I agree that it is more complicated, however I tried to present the crux of the interpretation that I got while reading about it, and not an entire thesis on his belief system ;)



No offense HFGP, but I don't think you've been doing it right ;)

//pls don't take offense to my disagreeing with you - rather disagree with me back!

I don't meditate! LOL that was just an example of what someone who is spiritual might do.

[Debbie]

I don't choose to not believe in giant flying dinosaurs, I just don't. :)

[sparklehorse]

And if your parents chose to believe in giant flying dinosaurs and taught you to believe in them while growing up...?

You still wouldn't have chosen to believe in GFD's , but you probably would have.

btw. the pdf and lit version of this book is floating around on the internet. But it's much nicer to read a real book ;)

[Nod]

I see that Exclusive Books in Menlyn have quite a lot of them, and right at the entrance too.

[Edwe]

I see that Exclusive Books in Menlyn have quite a lot of them, and right at the entrance too.

Giant flying dinosaurs? :eek:

[Nod]

Giant flying dinosaurs? :eek:

No books :rolleyes:

[Edwe]

No books :rolleyes:

I know what you mean, I was just trying to be funny. It is kind of ambiguous after reading the two preceding posts ;)

[Mr TB]

Yip he totally owned that guy.

That pastor is such an arrogant twit that I felt like fisting his face via my screen. He accuses Dawkins of being arrogant yet he's the one displaying arrogance!

For anybody interested, you can view a short clip here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=G5yjqFH-SUQ) from the documentary with the pastor displaying just how obnoxious evangelists can be.

The full documentary can be found here (http://www.mininova.org/tor/402681) or here (http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/840927/Dawkins_The_Root_of_All_Evil_The_God_Delusion_The_ Virus_of_Faith_2006) where Dawkins makes this guy look like the ass that he is. (NB: file is 600MB)

what is so funny about this, at first i sat in a forum being grinded for my view on homosexual relationships...

now here i assume the pastor was involved in such relationship... now it comes out and you grind him... something is wrong with your standards or you are like hiennas...you know...

you should actually be forgiving the guy... if that is the way your liberal thinkers tried to potrait yourself in the other forum...

[Highflyer_GP]

Ermm whatever man, stop trolling if you have no clue what you're talking about. That's the problem with you, you assume too much. If you don't want to take the time to read something, then don't comment. It's as simple as that. Watch the documentary or read the book first, then come back and post here. kthanksbye

[Neo]

what is so funny about this, at first i sat in a forum being grinded for my view on homosexual relationships...

now here i assume the pastor was involved in such relationship... now it comes out and you grind him... something is wrong with your standards or you are like hiennas...you know...

you should actually be forgiving the guy... if that is the way your liberal thinkers tried to potrait yourself in the other forum...

Errmm..., this view on homosexual relationships?


...the way homsexuals is raping the hebrew language trying to give credit to their dispiable way of living?

Not a lot of forgiveness in that statement?

Rather you missed the point around the irony of a pastor, who opposes gays and gay marriages, being homosexual himself.

[Neo]

Well most credible scientists do not question the existence of Christ plus or minus 2000 years ago. The Romans kept a record.
PeterCH, I'd be eternally grateful if you can pass me a copy, or link, or anything where I can find a copy of this 'record'. Been a bit of a personal Holy Grail to find such a record.

The Romans did keep meticulous records in this period, but (as a scholar of the historical J esus for more than 20 years), I've been unsuccessful to find even one record outside the Gospels mentioning a character so powerful that he could raise people from the dead and even arise from death himself.

Let alone turning water into wine. Don't you think that alone would have caught the attention of the Romans? :)

So please let us have this historical record.

[Mr TB]

Errmm..., this view on homosexual relationships?

Not a lot of forgiveness in that statement?

Rather you missed the point around the irony of a pastor, who opposes gays and gay marriages, being homosexual himself.

no NEO, i don't think i missed although i had they were correct, so you suggest that if i do a thing that i actually know is wrong in my heart i should support it...

This pastor new he was wrong that is why he was not in favour of such marriages....

If i am a thief and sit in front of an audience do you for one moment think i am going to support theft?

[Edwe]

If i am a thief and sit in front of an audience do you for one moment think i am going to support theft?

If you are a hypocrite, are you going to support hypocrisy? :D

[DragonLogos]

Well I am over half way through... was expecting a bit more, did have a peak at a few things ahead as it was going a bit slow

[Mr TB]

While surfing picked the following comment on Dawkins's book:

"Orr Attacks Dawkins
Evolution News & Views: Orr Attacks Dawkins:
A number of scientists, most notably Richard Dawkins, are presently engaging on what is being called a “crusade against religion, not just intelligent design.” Richard Gallagher, editor of The Scientist calls it “thought-provoking and worthwhile.” But not so H. Allen Orr, who attacks Dawkins’ latest book as “an extended polemic against faith.”
Orr calls Dawkins “an enemy of religion” and says he is “is on a mission to convert.” But Orr is apparently not on such a mission, saying “I’m among those scientists who must part company with him.” Orr calls The God Delusion “badly flawed” because it “never squarely faces its opponents.” In short, Orr believes that Dawkins rejects religion too hastily and in too dismissive a fashion…
I found this to be pretty right on. My biggest problem with Dawkins’ God Delusion was exactly as Orr puts it. It’s a polemic, a diatribe. It is not rational. If you’re going to be an atheist, fine - as long as you’re not a wretch of a human being, I couldn’t care less. I find atheism essentially irrational, as much as faith as essentially irrational. Indeed, I only believe agnosticism (lesser and greater versions) is particularly reasonable. But, still, I’m willing to make that leap of faith. But an atheist making a leap of faith? Does that even make sense?
I’ve studied the arguments, for and against, and honestly I find them all wanting. Making the declaration of “there is no god” is just as illogical as ‘there is a god.’ The difference between a man of faith who serious accepts that, and an atheist - is that one is a hypocrite.
And I think intelligent design is ridiculously stupid as something taught in schools as well, but eradicate religion? These men who advocate such things need to leave their universities and go hang out at the local gas station - the hole religion leaves will be filled with something else - historically such things have always been worse than what they replace. I wish to God that people were all rational and human, but they are not, and the excesses of humanity are still best met with religion, and while it is certainly abused - so is everything else.
on 11 Jan 2007 | General & Religious News & science | Comments (0)"

It is quoted as you all can see...

[Highflyer_GP]

Dawkins is rated as one of the world's top 3 intellectuals. WTF is this dude? Is it a case of sour grapes?

[Mr TB]

Dawkins is rated as one of the world's top 3 intellectuals. WTF is this dude? Is it a case of sour grapes?

Lovely dude i like ratings they are quite misleading... here's another one:

"

Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Orr Attacks Dawkins
Posted by Casey Luskin on Evolution News and Views:
A number of scientists, most notably Richard Dawkins, are presently engaging on what is being called a "crusade against religion, not just intelligent design." Richard Gallagher, editor of The Scientist calls it "thought-provoking and worthwhile." But not so H. Allen Orr, who attacks
Dawkins’ latest book as "an extended polemic against faith."
Orr calls Dawkins "an enemy of religion" and says he is "is on a mission to convert." But Orr is apparently not on such a mission, saying “I’m among those scientists who must part company with him." Orr calls The God Delusion "badly flawed" because it "never squarely faces its opponents." In short, Orr believes that Dawkins rejects religion too hastily and in too dismissive a fashion, saying, “You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology in Dawkins's book.”
But one of Orr’s primary complaints strikes against an issue related to the scientific theory of intelligent design--namely, Dawkins' extensive reliance upon the “who designed the designer” objection. Orr writes:
First, as others have pointed out, if he is right, the design hypothesis essentially must be wrong and the alternative naturalistic hypothesis essentially must be right. But since when is a scientific hypothesis confirmed by philosophical gymnastics, not data? Second, the fact that we as scientists find a hypothesis question-begging—as when Dawkins asks "who designed the designer?"— cannot, in itself, settle its truth value. It could, after all, be a brute fact of the universe that it derives from some transcendent mind, however question-begging this may seem. What explanations we find satisfying might say more about us than about the explanations. Why, for example, is Dawkins so untroubled by his own (large) assumption that both matter and the laws of nature can be viewed as given? Why isn't that question-begging?
Orr is correct. The hypothesis that there exists in nature real design is a testable, scientific hypothesis which can be settled by data. Nature may show signs of real design even if we don’t know everything about the designer, such as where the designer originally came from. As far as intelligent design is concerned, in our experience high levels of specified complexity makes for a reliable indicator of intelligent design. Thus when we find high levels of specified complexity (such as in DNA or in the fine-tuning of the laws of the universe to allow for life), we can infer design. Design is testable, it has been tested, and it passes the test.
Orr concludes "I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I'm forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he's actually more an amateur." He has a scathing conclusion:
One reason for the lack of extended argument in The God Delusion is clear: Dawkins doesn't seem very good at it. Indeed he suffers from several problems when attempting to reason philosophically. The most obvious is that he has a preordained set of conclusions at which he's determined to arrive. Consequently, Dawkins uses any argument, however feeble, that seems to get him there and the merit of various arguments appears judged largely by where they lead."

It's in quotation marks like you said , not my own writing but very enlightning to read...

[Nick333]

Thats great dodo, now you can save yourself the trouble of reading it yourself and use this guys opinion.

[Highflyer_GP]

Yeah oddly enough it's the same guy attacking him. Definitely a case of sour grapes. Whatever...

[Mr TB]

Yeah oddly enough it's the same guy attacking him. Definitely a case of sour grapes. Whatever...

Open them eyes sunnyboys i did even post the actual attack, the above was only reviews by other journalists of the actual attack launched by Orr...

[texo]

So what's your opinion of the book, Dodo?

[Rkootknir]

Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Orr Attacks Dawkins
Posted by Casey Luskin on Evolution News and Views:Erm, Casey Luskin is the PR guy at the Disco(very) Institute (http://www.discovery.org/csc/). Among their fellows you can find "scientists" like: Bill Dembski, Michael Behe & Jonathan Wells.

These are the guys that turned creationism into Intelligent Design (by replacing every occurrence of the word creation with design & God with with designer). In their eyes this means that creationism is now science...

(BTW is douwdouw more than one person? There is a post a bit higher that almost seems rational.)


Dawkins is rated as one of the world's top 3 intellectuals. WTF is this dude? Is it a case of sour grapes?Allen Orr is actually one of the most active defenders of evolution against creationism. See eg. here (http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html). Dawkins is a bit of a "firebrand" and I don't think it is unreasonable that people question his book. :)

[Highflyer_GP]

Allen Orr is actually one of the most active defenders of evolution against creationism. See eg. here (http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html). Dawkins is a bit of a "firebrand" and I don't think it is unreasonable that people question his book. :)
Dawkins might appear to some as a little eccentric or overly enthusiastic about the subject, however he does raise some very valid points even though the way he goes about it might not appeal to everybody ;)

[Mr TB]

Erm, Casey Luskin is the PR guy at the Disco(very) Institute (http://www.discovery.org/csc/). Among their fellows you can find "scientists" like: Bill Dembski, Michael Behe & Jonathan Wells.

These are the guys that turned creationism into Intelligent Design (by replacing every occurrence of the word creation with design & God with with designer). In their eyes this means that creationism is now science...

(BTW is douwdouw more than one person? There is a post a bit higher that almost seems rational.)

Allen Orr is actually one of the most active defenders of evolution against creationism. See eg. here (http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html). Dawkins is a bit of a "firebrand" and I don't think it is unreasonable that people question his book. :)

Yes I indeed picked up that Allen Orr is as you say, who better to discredit a flook like Dawkins than one of his own?

[arf9999]

Have you read the book yet, dodo? Otherwise it is difficult to give any of your arguments against Dawkins any credence.

[Mr TB]

Have you read the book yet, dodo? Otherwise it is difficult to give any of your arguments against Dawkins any credence.

None of my arguments in any of the threads carried any credence in anyway, do you think admitting reading a book will change that?... that proud i ain't ... credence means nothing to me as long as you hear ... faith comes by hearing...

[arf9999]

None of my arguments in any of the threads carried any credence in anyway, ..

well, at least you admit that.

[Highflyer_GP]

ROFL dodo you just admitted to being an idiotic troll who everybody can ignore.

[Debbie]

Have to say I have a problem with Dawkins conduct- his style is a bit like a little self-important kid throwing a tantrum trying to get people to listen to him and him alone.

I've had classmates who were smarter than him. He's still smart, but 'top 3 intellectuals'? What does that even mean?

[Freshy-ZN]

Have to say I have a problem with Dawkins conduct- his style is a bit like a little self-important kid throwing a tantrum trying to get people to listen to him and him alone.

I've had classmates who were smarter than him. He's still smart, but 'top 3 intellectuals'? What does that even mean?

He is a pom, what you expect? :p

[Neo]

Have to say I have a problem with Dawkins conduct- his style is a bit like a little self-important kid throwing a tantrum trying to get people to listen to him and him alone.

I've had classmates who were smarter than him. He's still smart, but 'top 3 intellectuals'? What does that even mean?

I agree he does come across as a little too self-important, but not enough to want you to stop listening to him.

In any case, separate the man from the position he presents, use whatever he offers to add to your own base.

[Debbie]

use whatever he offers to add to your own base.

Great attitude Neo, you should make it a religion :D

[Highflyer_GP]

Well that's the thing, his style may not appeal to everybody and he may come across as a little arrogant to some, however that doesn't mean that he doesn't raise any valid points. While I think that he does have somewhat of an attitude about himself, I do however like the way that he tells it like it is.

[sparklehorse]

I don't think the way he presents his arguments is that bad. I haven't read all of the book yet, but so far there is nothing that I find too over the top. I think it is more that people are not used to other people talking about religion the way he does. For some reason it is accepted that religion have a sort of special status and that you're supposed to respect it more. He just treats it like any other idea and evaluates it on the evidence.
I find it refreshing.

[Mr TB]

I don't think the way he presents his arguments is that bad. I haven't read all of the book yet, but so far there is nothing that I find too over the top. I think it is more that people are not used to other people talking about religion the way he does. For some reason it is accepted that religion have a sort of special status and that you're supposed to respect it more. He just treats it like any other idea and evaluates it on the evidence.
I find it refreshing.

I should not do this but look at this quotes concerning The god delusion.


"He is spectacularly inept when it comes to the traditional philosophical arguments for God, such as the cosmological, the ontological and the arguments from design. (...) Dawkins is so dismissive and often so skewed or superficial that he doesn't make much contact with Christians like me. Real challenges to theism certainly exist, but he tends to skate over the top. He is at his best and most likeable when his deep love for science and enthusiasm for sharing it, his evangelical zeal, I'm tempted to say, come to the fore." - Barney Zwartz, The Age

"That I must give a howling boo to much of The God Delusion is a recommendation. Again and again, it forces the reader to ardent thought. (...) As a critic of faith, Dawkins is thus pretty lame; as the bard of materialist myth, his only rival is Philip Pullman." - Murrough O'Brien, Independent on Sunday

"(A) very uneven collection of scriptural ridicule, amateur philosophy, historical and contemporary horror stories, anthropological speculations, and cosmological scientific argument." - Thomas Nagel, The New Republic

"In spite of the evidence that holding religious belief has become part of human nature through natural selection, Dawkins looks upon it as superfluous and the root of much violent evil. But however clever his reasoning (and it is clever), The God Delusion sounds like a personal vendetta, complete with elitist undertones and some uncomfortably dictatorial passages. In the preface, he expresses the hope that religious readers who open the book will be atheists when they put it down. That is academic arrogance -- and shows negligible insight into the way humans behave." - Margaret Cook, New Statesman

"The most disappointing feature of The God Delusion is Dawkins's failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. This is, obviously, an odd thing to say about a book-length investigation into God. But the problem reflects Dawkins's cavalier attitude about the quality of religious thinking. (...) Dawkins has written a book that's distinctly, even defiantly, middlebrow. (...) None of Dawkins's loud pronouncements on God follows from any experiment or piece of data. It's just Dawkins talking." - H. Allen Orr, The New York Review of Books

[bk.ru]

I should not do this but look at this quotes concerning The god delusion.


"He is spectacularly inept when it comes to the traditional philosophical arguments for God, such as the cosmological, the ontological and the arguments from design. (...) Dawkins is so dismissive and often so skewed or superficial that he doesn't make much contact with Christians like me. Real challenges to theism certainly exist, but he tends to skate over the top. He is at his best and most likeable when his deep love for science and enthusiasm for sharing it, his evangelical zeal, I'm tempted to say, come to the fore." - Barney Zwartz, The Age

"That I must give a howling boo to much of The God Delusion is a recommendation. Again and again, it forces the reader to ardent thought. (...) As a critic of faith, Dawkins is thus pretty lame; as the bard of materialist myth, his only rival is Philip Pullman." - Murrough O'Brien, Independent on Sunday

"(A) very uneven collection of scriptural ridicule, amateur philosophy, historical and contemporary horror stories, anthropological speculations, and cosmological scientific argument." - Thomas Nagel, The New Republic

"In spite of the evidence that holding religious belief has become part of human nature through natural selection, Dawkins looks upon it as superfluous and the root of much violent evil. But however clever his reasoning (and it is clever), The God Delusion sounds like a personal vendetta, complete with elitist undertones and some uncomfortably dictatorial passages. In the preface, he expresses the hope that religious readers who open the book will be atheists when they put it down. That is academic arrogance -- and shows negligible insight into the way humans behave." - Margaret Cook, New Statesman

"The most disappointing feature of The God Delusion is Dawkins's failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. This is, obviously, an odd thing to say about a book-length investigation into God. But the problem reflects Dawkins's cavalier attitude about the quality of religious thinking. (...) Dawkins has written a book that's distinctly, even defiantly, middlebrow. (...) None of Dawkins's loud pronouncements on God follows from any experiment or piece of data. It's just Dawkins talking." - H. Allen Orr, The New York Review of Books

You have not read the book yourself. Go away.

[Mr TB]

And finally the original article published “Orr attacks Dawkins”-find typical dawkins talk…

Scientists' interest in religion seems to come in waves. One arrived after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859. Another followed in the 1930s and 1940s, inspired by surprising revelations from quantum mechanics, which suggested the insufficiency of conventional physical theories of the universe. And now scientists are once again writing about religion, apparently provoked this time by the controversy surrounding intelligent design.
During the last year, a number of popular books on religion by scientists or philosophers of science have appeared. Daniel Dennett kicked things off with his Breaking the Spell (2006), an investigation into the possibility of a science of religion. Reviewing evolutionary, psychological, and economic theories of the origin and spread of belief, Dennett covered much ground but reached few conclusions. In the last few months, three prominent scientists—all biologists—have published their own books on belief. Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, has given us The God Delusion, an extended polemic against faith, which will be considered at length below.
Lewis Wolpert, an eminent developmental biologist at University College London, has just published Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast, a pleasant, though rambling, look at the biological basis of belief. While the book focuses on our ability to form causal beliefs about everyday matters (the wind moved the trees, for example), it spends considerable time on the origins of religious and moral beliefs. Wolpert defends the unusual idea that causal thinking is an adaptation required for tool-making. Religious beliefs can thus be seen as an odd extension of causal thinking about technology to more mysterious matters. Only a species that can reason causally could assert that "this storm was sent by God because we sinned." While Wolpert's attitude toward religion is tolerant, he's an atheist who seems to find religion more puzzling than absorbing.

CONTINUE...

[Mr TB]

CONTINUED

Joan Roughgarden, on the other hand, is sold on religion. An evolutionary biologist at Stanford University and a recent convert to Christianity, she attempts in Evolution and Christian Faith both to explain evolutionary biology to fellow believers—laying out what is known, what is speculative, and what is unknown—and to discuss what the Bible has to say on matters relevant to evolution. These are ambitious aims, particularly for so brief a book, and Roughgarden's own views—that, as she writes, "what evolutionary biologists are finding through their research and thinking actually promotes a Christian view of nature"—are not supported by sufficiently detailed arguments.
1.
Among these books, Dawkins's The God Delusion stands out for two reasons. First, it's by far the most ambitious. While Wolpert and Roughgarden preach to the choir—each has his or her own audience, rationalist and religious, respectively—Dawkins is on a mission to convert. He is an enemy of religion, wants to explain why, and hopes thereby to drive the beast to extinction. Second, Dawkins has succeeded in grabbing the public's attention in a way that other writers can only dream of. His book is on the New York Times best-seller list and he's just been featured on the cover of Time magazine.
Dawkins's first book, The Selfish Gene (1976), was a smash hit. An introduction to evolutionary theory, it explained a number of deeply counter-intuitive results, including how an apparently self-centered process like Darwinian natural selection can account for the evolution of altruism. Best of all, Dawkins laid out this biology—some of it truly subtle—in stunningly lucid prose. (It is, in my view, the best work of popular science ever written.) While Dawkins has published several other popular books on Darwinism, he has, in recent years, turned to larger issues. In such works as Unweaving the Rainbow (1998) and A Devil's Chaplain (2003), he's explored our sense of wonder before the natural world and, increasingly, the tension between science and religion.
His new book continues this last theme. Dawkins clearly believes his background in science allows him to draw strong conclusions about religion and, in The God Delusion, he presents those conclusions in language that's stronger still. Dawkins not only thinks religion is unalloyed nonsense but that it is an overwhelmingly pernicious, even "very evil," force in the world. His target is not so much organized religion as all religion. And within organized religion, he attacks not only extremist sects but moderate ones. Indeed, he argues that rearing children in a religious tradition amounts to child abuse.
Dawkins's book begins with a description of what he calls the God Hypothesis. This is the idea that "the universe and everything in it" were designed by "a superhuman, supernatural intelligence." This intelligence might be personal (as in Christianity) or impersonal (as in deism). Dawkins is not concerned with the alleged detailed characteristics of God but with whether any form of the God Hypothesis is defensible. His answer is: almost cer-tainly not. Although his target is broad, Dawkins discusses mostly Christianity, partly because this faith has wrestled often with science and partly because it's the tradition Dawkins knows best (he was reared as an Anglican).
________________________________________
The first few chapters of The God Delusion are given over to philosophical matters. Dawkins summarizes the traditional philosophical arguments for God's existence, from Aquinas through pre-Darwinian arguments from biological design, along with the traditional arguments against them. In a later chapter entitled "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God," Dawkins himself plays philosopher, presenting the chief argument of his book. The God Hypothesis, he tells us, is close to "ruled out by the laws of probability." Dawkins's demonstration involves what he calls the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. This is his variation on a standard creationist argument. By tweaking that argument in a clever way, Dawkins claims it now leads to a conclusion that's the opposite of the traditional creationist one.
The creationist argument works like this. Living things are enormously complex. Even the simplest of present-day organisms, like bacteria, are far more complicated than anything found in the nonliving world. All organisms carry genes, built from a replicating molecule like DNA (which is itself very complex). But DNA alone doesn't make an organism. Organisms also possess many different proteins (each, in turn, made of amino acids), as well as other molecules that help make structures like cell membranes. Moreover, all these parts must be arranged in just the right way: membranes on the outside of the cell and DNA on the inside, and so on. Creationists argue that the idea that such organized complexity could arise by natural means—without the intercession of a designer mind— is absurd. In particular, they argue that the probability that life could assemble itself spontaneously is extremely close to zero. To dramatize this, they suggest that thinking life could arise by natural means is like thinking a tornado could tear through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747. Such an event is not, strictly speaking, impossible but it's so extraordinarily unlikely that it is, according to creationists, unworthy of serious consideration.[1]

CONTINUE

[Mr TB]

Orr's attack on Dawkins...
Dawkins's variation on this argument involves a judo-like move in which he turns its logic against itself. In particular, Dawkins claims that rejecting natural means to explain life and instead invoking a designer God leaves us with a hypothesis that's even more improbable than the naturalistic one:
A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right.
In short, only complicated objects can design simpler ones; information cannot flow in the other direction, with simple objects designing complicated ones. But that means any designer God would have to be more complex —and thus even more improbable— than the universe he was supposed to explain. This argument, Dawkins concludes, "comes close to proving that God does not exist": the God Hypothesis has a vanishingly small probability of being right.
________________________________________
The latter half of The God Delusion is partly devoted to Dawkins's discussion of religion as practiced. Not surprisingly, he finds little good to say about it: religion for him is the root of much evil and its disappearance from the world would be an unmitigated good. Religion, he tells us, is certainly not the source of our morality (indeed the God of the Old Testament is, he claims, nothing short of monstrous) and believers are no better morally than nonbelievers; in fact they may be worse. Dawkins regales us with tales of Christian cops who threaten to beat up an atheist; presents statistics on the higher rates of crime in regions that are religious; and argues that, when considering religiously inspired violence and terrorism, "we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism—as though that were some kind of terrible perversion of real, decent re-ligion." Late in his book, Dawkins defends a faith-free morality and provides his own, secular, Ten Commandments. (For example, "Do not indoctrinate your children" and "Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else).")
As you may have noticed, Dawkins when discussing religion is, in effect, a blunt instrument, one that has a hard time distinguishing Unitarians from abortion clinic bombers. What may be less obvious is that, on questions of God, Dawkins cannot abide much dissent, especially from fellow scientists (and especially from fellow evolutionary biologists). Indeed Dawkins is fond of imputing ulterior motives to those "Neville Chamberlain School" scientists not willing to go as far as he in his war on religion: he suggests that they're guilty of disingenuousness, playing politics, and lusting after the large prizes awarded by the Templeton Foundation to scientists sympathetic to religion.[2] The only motive Dawkins doesn't seem to take seriously is that some scientists genuinely disagree with him.
Despite my admiration for much of Dawkins's work, I'm afraid that I'm among those scientists who must part company with him here. Indeed, The God Delusion seems to me badly flawed. Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I'm forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he's actually more an amateur. I don't pretend to know whether there's more to the world than meets the eye and, for all I know, Dawkins's general conclusion is right. But his book makes a far from convincing case.
2.
The most disappointing feature of The God Delusion is Dawkins's failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. This is, obviously, an odd thing to say about a book-length investigation into God. But the problem reflects Dawkins's cavalier attitude about the quality of religious thinking. Dawkins tends to dismiss simple expressions of belief as base superstition. Having no patience with the faith of fundamentalists, he also tends to dismiss more sophisticated expressions of belief as sophistry (he cannot, for instance, tolerate the meticulous reasoning of theologians). But if simple religion is barbaric (and thus unworthy of serious thought) and sophisticated religion is logic-chopping (and thus equally unworthy of serious thought), the ineluctable conclusion is that all religion is unworthy of serious thought.
The result is The God Delusion, a book that never squarely faces its opponents. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology in Dawkins's book (does he know Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century?), no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions (are they like ordinary claims about everyday matters?), no effort to appreciate the complex history of interaction between the Church and science (does he know the Church had an important part in the rise of non-Aristotelian science?), and no attempt to understand even the simplest of religious attitudes (does Dawkins really believe, as he says, that Christians should be thrilled to learn they're terminally ill?).
Instead, Dawkins has written a book that's distinctly, even defiantly, middlebrow. Dawkins's intellectual universe appears populated by the likes of Douglas Adams, the author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and Carl Sagan, the science popularizer,[3] both of whom he cites repeatedly. This is a different group from thinkers like William James and Ludwig Wittgenstein—both of whom lived after Darwin, both of whom struggled with the question of belief, and both of whom had more to say about religion than Adams and Sagan. Dawkins spends much time on what can only be described as intellectual banalities: "Did ***** have a human father, or was his mother a virgin at the time of his birth? Whether or not there is enough surviving evidence to decide it, this is still a strictly scientific question."[4]
The vacuum created by Dawkins's failure to engage religious thought must be filled by something, and in The God Delusion, it gets filled by extraneous quotation, letters from correspondents, and, most of all, anecdote after anecdote. Dawkins's discussion of religion's power to console, for example, is interrupted by the story of the Abbott of Ampleforth's joy at learning of a friend's impending death; speculation about why countries, such as the Netherlands, that allow euthanasia are so rare (presumably because of religious prejudice); a nurse who told Dawkins that believers fear death more than nonbelievers do; and the number of days of remission from Purgatory that Pope Pius X allowed cardinals and bishops (two hundred, and fifty, respectively). All this and more in four pages. Gone, it seems, is the Dawkins of The Selfish Gene, a writer who could lead readers through dauntingly difficult arguments and who used anecdotes to illustrate those arguments, not to substitute for them.


Orr's attack on Dawkins continued...

[Highflyer_GP]

Dodo are you totally daft or something? Do you NOT understand somebody telling you to read the book and then comment? Are you so lazy that you would take somebody else's opinion for it? FFS man, it's about time you get lost, your ramblings are becoming irritating. Go troll elsewhere.

/rant

[Neo]

I don't think the way he presents his arguments is that bad. I haven't read all of the book yet, but so far there is nothing that I find too over the top. I think it is more that people are not used to other people talking about religion the way he does. For some reason it is accepted that religion have a sort of special status and that you're supposed to respect it more. He just treats it like any other idea and evaluates it on the evidence.
I find it refreshing.
I watched a video a while ago of Dawkins doing a reading from his book and then a Q&A.

Was very good, but he was also a bit short and dismissive to some of the audience and I wondered about it. What I think it is, is the situation we often get ourselves in when someone ask you the same question over and over. (I've got a 6 year old....)

The first few times you answer in great detail but after the nth time you kinda like want to say "Because!"

But I agree, we tend to *****foot around when religion is discussed (mostly our Calvinistic upbringing, I suppose), but as Dawkins himself asks; Why do we do this?

[Neo]

Great attitude Neo, you should make it a religion :D

Isn't knowledge just the ultimate high? :D

(Does that make me a Gnostic? :confused:)

[Mr TB]

I think i read more than enough of it...

3.
One reason for the lack of extended argument in The God Delusion is clear: Dawkins doesn't seem very good at it. Indeed he suffers from several problems when attempting to reason philosophically. The most obvious is that he has a preordained set of conclusions at which he's determined to arrive. Consequently, Dawkins uses any argument, however feeble, that seems to get him there and the merit of various arguments appears judged largely by where they lead.
The most important example involves Dawkins's discussion of philosophical arguments for the existence of God as opposed to his own argument against God, which he presents as the intellectual heart of his book. Considering arguments for God, Dawkins is care-ful to recite the many standard objections to them and writes that the traditional proofs are "vacuous," "dubious," "infantile," and "perniciously misleading." But turning to his own Ultimate Boeing 747 argument against God, Dawkins is suddenly uninterested in criticism and writes that his argument is "unanswerable." So why, you might wonder, is a clever philosophical argument for God subject to withering criticism while one against God gets a free pass and is deemed devastating?
The reason seems clear. The first argument leads to a conclusion Dawkins despises, while the second leads to one he loves. Dawkins, so far as I can tell, is unconcerned that the central argument of his book bears more than a passing resemblance to those clever philosophical proofs for the existence of God that he dismisses. This is unfortunate. He could have used a healthy dose of his usual skepticism when deciding how much to invest in his own Ultimate Boeing 747 argument. Indeed, one needn't be a creationist to note that Dawkins's argument suffers at least two potential problems. First, as others have pointed out, if he is right, the design hypothesis essentially must be wrong and the alternative naturalistic hypothesis essentially must be right. But since when is a scientific hypothesis confirmed by philosophical gymnastics, not data? Second, the fact that we as scientists find a hypothesis question-begging—as when Dawkins asks "who designed the designer?"— cannot, in itself, settle its truth value. It could, after all, be a brute fact of the universe that it derives from some transcendent mind, however question-begging this may seem. What explanations we find satisfying might say more about us than about the explanations. Why, for example, is Dawkins so untroubled by his own (large) assumption that both matter and the laws of nature can be viewed as given? Why isn't that question-begging?
Exercises in double standards also plague Dawkins's discussion of the idea that religion encourages good behavior. Dawkins cites a litany of statistics revealing that red states (with many conservative Christians) suffer higher rates of crime, including murder, burglary, and theft, than do blue states. But now consider his response to the suggestion that the atheist Stalin and his comrades committed crimes of breathtaking magnitude: "We are not in the business," he says, "of counting evils heads, compiling two rival roll calls of iniquity." We're not? We were forty-five pages ago.
Dawkins's problems with philosophy might be related to a failure of metaphysical imagination. When thinking of those vast matters that make up religion—matters of ultimate meaning that stand at the edge of intelligibility and that are among the most difficult to articulate—he sees only black and white. Despite some attempts at subtlety, Dawkins almost reflexively identifies religion with right-wing fundamentalism and biblical literalism. Other, more nuanced possibilities— varieties of deism, mysticism, or nondenominational spirituality—have a harder time holding his attention. It may be that Dawkins can't imagine these possibilities vividly enough to worry over them in a serious way.
There's an irony here. Dawkins's main criticism of those who doubt Darwin—and it's a good one—is that they suffer a similar failure of imagination. Those, for example, who argue that evolution could never make an eye because anything less than a fully formed eye can't see simply can't imagine the surprising routes taken by evolution. In any case, part of what it means to suffer a failure of imagination may be that one can't conceive that one's imagination is impoverished. It's hard to resist the conclusion that people like James and Wittgenstein struggled personally with religion, while Dawkins shrugs his shoulders, at least in part because they conceived possibilities—mistaken ones perhaps, but certainly more interesting ones— that escape Dawkins.
4.
Putting aside these philosophical matters, Dawkins's key empirical claim—that religion is a pernicious force in the world—might still be right. Is it? Throughout The God Delusion, Dawkins reminds us of the horrors committed in the name of God, from outright war, through the persecution of minority sects, acts of terrorism, the closing of children's minds, and the oppression of those having unorthodox sexual lives. No decent person can fail to be repulsed by the sins committed in the name of religion. So we all agree: religion can be bad.
But the critical question is: compared to what? And here Dawkins is less convincing because he fails to examine the question in a systematic way. Tests of religion's consequences might involve a number of different comparisons: between religion's good and bad effects, or between the behavior of believers and nonbelievers, and so on. While Dawkins touches on each, his modus operandi generally involves comparing religion as practiced —religion, that is, as it plays out in the rough-and-tumble world of compromise, corruption, and incompetence— with atheism as theory. But fairness requires that we compare both religion and atheism as practiced or both as theory. The latter is an amorphous and perhaps impossible task, and I can see why Dawkins sidesteps it. But comparing both as practiced is more straightforward. And, at least when considering religious and atheist institutions, the facts of history do not, I believe, demonstrate beyond doubt that atheism comes out on the side of the angels. Dawkins has a difficult time facing up to the dual facts that (1) the twentieth century was an experiment in secularism; and (2) the result was secular evil, an evil that, if anything, was more spectacularly virulent than that which came before.
Part of Dawkins's difficulty is that his worldview is thoroughly Victorian. He is, as many have noted, a kind of latter-day T.H. Huxley. The problem is that these latter days have witnessed blood-curdling experiments in institutional atheism. Dawkins tends to wave away the resulting crimes. It is, he insists, unclear if they were actually inspired by atheism. He emphasizes, for example, that Stalin's brutality may not have been motivated by his atheism. While this is surely partly true, it's a tricky issue, especially as one would need to allow for the same kind of distinction when considering religious institutions. (Does anyone really believe that the Church's dreadful dealings with the Nazis were motivated by its theism?)

[Neo]

I should not do this but look at this quotes concerning The god delusion.

What do YOU think of the book?

Your OWN opinion, not someone else's? (It's really OK, you know, to have your own opinion)

But it does mean you have to do some hard work, like actually reading the book.

[Mr TB]

Why is Mr.Dawkins irritated by the questions, or then may short tempered? NEO gives the answer, having to give the same answer over and over again not so? I agree with you NEO.
The same leniency however is not granted when christians explain their views, answers given by them are just not acceptable...
Why on earth should any of the answers given by Dawkins be accepted, if one of his doesn't even agree with him-H. Allan Orr...

[Highflyer_GP]

+Dodo to ignore list. Enough of his ignorance, can't take it anymore.

[texo]

Dodo
Why do you feel it necessary to parrot others' opinions of the book. Why not read it yourself, and share your impressions with us. That way you could possibly surprise all of your critics with an original thought or two.

[fivelza]

Dodo
Why do you feel it necessary to parrot others' opinions of the book. Why not read it yourself, and share your impressions with us. That way you could possibly surprise all of your critics with an original thought or two.

I have tried, he doesn't care to listen :o

[Mr TB]

What do YOU think of the book?

Your OWN opinion, not someone else's? (It's really OK, you know, to have your own opinion)

But it does mean you have to do some hard work, like actually reading the book.

Mr Dawkins and me have nothing in common. He believes god does not exist and try and prove that in his book, not succeeding in my opinion.

I believe god that god indeed exist, in his book dawkins self-importance or then self-image and thus pride comes to the fore. In my opinion pride is idol, so dawkins have a god although not acknowledging it.

Dawkins is blaming hardship in this world on religion, therefore running away from his responsibility towards mankind. Hardship was brought into this world via mankind's rebelion against a sovereign god. It is mankind responsibility to sort it out not gods...I
I have given you at least three reasons why I find it not necessary to read material biased against the almighty sovereign god...

[Neo]

Thanks dodo, just spent a few very interesting minutes reading through your detailed review of The God Delusion.

Actually very good. I hope you read it yourself one day.

Orr actually seem to agree with Dawkins' main points (but seems bitter about it) while he tries to ridicule him on minor ones. He comes up with silly arguments. For example, Dwakins not discussing specific religions in detail. Why should he? The book is not an argument against just Christianity, it's about the delusional believe in a creator.

So why is Orr so bitter? Professional jealousy?

[kilps]

listen douwdouw - my current opinion is that the existence of God is entirely practical - however I have not read the entire book as of yet and so will not comment on its arguments

I would advise you to do the same if you wish to be taken seriously

[Nick333]

Mr Dawkins and me have nothing in common. He believes god does not exist and try and prove that in his book, not succeeding in my opinion.


You haven't read the book, how could you have an opinion of it?

Never mind, you're and embarrassment to yourself. Do you not realize that the things you say only make Christianity look more foolish?

For the sake of giving Christianity something approaching a fair go, just stop now.

What am I saying...? Please. Continue.

[Highflyer_GP]

So why is Orr so bitter? Professional jealousy?
Stated that earlier - seems to me like a case of sour grapes even though they share a similar point of view.

[Neo]

Mr Dawkins and me have nothing in common. He believes god does not exist and try and prove that in his book, not succeeding in my opinion.

I believe god that god indeed exist, in his book dawkins self-importance or then self-image and thus pride comes to the fore. In my opinion pride is idol, so dawkins have a god although not acknowledging it.

Dawkins is blaming hardship in this world on religion, therefore running away from his responsibility towards mankind. Hardship was brought into this world via mankind's rebelion against a sovereign god. It is mankind responsibility to sort it out not gods...I
I have given you at least three reasons why I find it not necessary to read material biased against the almighty sovereign god...

You've NOT read the book, so how the hell can you give me 3 good reasons? Are you clairvoyant?

Actually you only gave one good reason: You are so narrow-minded that you refuse to read anything you might not like the outcome.

Scared Dawkins might convert you?

[Debbie]

Isn't knowledge just the ultimate high? :D

Indeed Neo! :D

To derail the thread back on topic... [:D]one of the problems I have with Dawkins is that he proposes to have dealt with various arguments regarding the existance of God, but if you read him very closely many of his counter-arguments are skeletal- he doesn't counter well enough. He doesn't address follow-on questions. His counter arguments are incomplete.

I think he says some things very well, however.

Like Neo implies... why do people think that Dawkins either has to be 'accepted' or 'rejected'? There are certain things he says that I accept and agree with, and certain things that I think he is wrong about.

[Mr TB]

Why did you not remark on mr dawkins, his self-importance, pride and that the mentioned items is selfish, idolising himself?

Doing exactly what satan did in his pride exalt himself above god?

[Mr TB]

Thanks dodo, just spent a few very interesting minutes reading through your detailed review of The God Delusion.

Actually very good. I hope you read it yourself one day.

Orr actually seem to agree with Dawkins' main points (but seems bitter about it) while he tries to ridicule him on minor ones. He comes up with silly arguments. For example, Dwakins not discussing specific religions in detail. Why should he? The book is not an argument against just Christianity, it's about the delusional believe in a creator.

So why is Orr so bitter? Professional jealousy?

So the existence of matter that Dawkins just accept without explantion you really believe a christian must accept detail like that as minor to ensure that your theories concerning natural selection have its place?

If there is really nothing like in nothing ... there nothing to select from...

[Mr TB]

You haven't read the book, how could you have an opinion of it?

Never mind, you're and embarrassment to yourself. Do you not realize that the things you say only make Christianity look more foolish?

For the sake of giving Christianity something approaching a fair go, just stop now.

What am I saying...? Please. Continue.

You are an embarassment to youself also, i read enough commentaries to realise the man did not succeed in his mission... he should stick to his line of work, he isn't any philosopher...

[Neo]

To derail the thread back on topic... [:D]one of the problems I have with Dawkins is that he proposes to have dealt with various arguments regarding the existance of God, but if you read him very closely many of his counter-arguments are skeletal- he doesn't counter well enough. He doesn't address follow-on questions. His counter arguments are incomplete.

Again I have to agree, felt a bit let down with his counter arguments. But maybe we were waiting for this giant-killer argument that would just kill all debate once and for all?

And it probably does not exist, if it did, the debate would've been over a long time ago.

But all the 'smaller' points do weave a compelling story.

[bk.ru]

douwdouw is the most prolific bull*****er i have come across.

[Nick333]

douwdouw is the most prolific bull*****er i have come across.

Douwdouw is one of those Jesuit like evangelical Christians who feels it is ok to lie through there teeth, distort the truth and resort to blatant slander to spread gods "truth".

[Mr TB]

Douwdouw is one of those Jesuit like evangelical Christians who feels it is ok to lie through there teeth, distort the truth and resort to blatant slander to spread gods "truth".

mmm... Very interesting remark... if GOD exist (i know he does, i do not need prove) who is doing the slandering?

GOD is the MOST HIGH and the MOST JUST so you can not query hs actions if he exist can you?, for that very reason. He is the MOST JUST, how can you query such person for his actions? Please explain...

[Neo]

mmm... Very interesting remark... if GOD exist (i know he does, i do not need prove) who is doing the slandering?

GOD is the MOST HIGH and the MOST JUST so you can not query hs actions if he exist can you?, for that very reason. He is the MOST JUST, how can you query such person for his actions? Please explain...

I'd agree if God actually proved himself to be the MOST JUST. But most of what we know about God shows him to be anything but just. We've discussed this at length.

You might remember the whole discussion how God overruled Pharaoh's free will just to prove how great he (God) is. How 'just' is that? And part of the proof was to kill every first-born (completely innocent children). How 'just' is that?

[sparklehorse]

Having someone on your ignore list is no fun if everyone keeps quoting him :rolleyes:
Please do not feed the trolls ;)


one of the problems I have with Dawkins is that he proposes to have dealt with various arguments regarding the existance of God, but if you read him very closely many of his counter-arguments are skeletal- he doesn't counter well enough. He doesn't address follow-on questions. His counter arguments are incomplete.

I think he says some things very well, however.

Like Neo implies... why do people think that Dawkins either has to be 'accepted' or 'rejected'? There are certain things he says that I accept and agree with, and certain things that I think he is wrong about.Could you give more specific examples please?

[hosepipe]

Where can I get this for a reasonable price? Is buying it online my cheapest option? Is it available in bookstores in softcover?

Any reasons why I should not read this book?

//not looking to start another God debate thread :)

Name of the book sounded so promising however I found his arguments (although sophisticated ) to require a certain amount of faith and feel that he isn't as convincing as he thinks he is. Unfortunately Mr Dawkins left me with the impression that Mr Dawkins quite likes Mr Dawkins. I feel your money would be better spent buying your friends a round of drinks whilst discussing the topic amongst yourselves.

[bk.ru]

Name of the book sounded so promising however I found his arguments (although sophisticated ) to require a certain amount of faith

How did you come to that conclusion?


and feel that he isn't as convincing as he thinks he is.

How did you come to that conclusion?


Unfortunately Mr Dawkins left me with the impression that Mr Dawkins quite likes Mr Dawkins. I feel your money would be better spent buying your friends a round of drinks whilst discussing the topic amongst yourselves.

Or on Rhema! The choices are endless!

[Debbie]

Dawkins certainly isn't as convincing as he thinks he is! He leaves too much hanging in the air.

[fivelza]

Dawkins certainly isn't as convincing as he thinks he is! He leaves too much hanging in the air.

Finally a view from someone who has read the book..thanks Debs!

[Debbie]

fivelza, I have read the first 120 pages or so, and flipped through the rest :)

Also, wrt to the existence of god- i dont think there is a big man in the sky who is going to reward some peeps and send others to hell. I also dont think that there is no god. In fact, i'm pretty darn sure that there is *something* bigger than us. but what this is or how it works or whether we can perceive it in its entirety is a whole other story.

Look for me it's pretty simple- mere existence is proof that there is something....something that we do not know.

[simple_simon]

just an interesting article on the creationist vs. evolutionists.

it ties into how both rely on faith

http://www.enterprisemission.com/IntelligentDesignandGod-Man-and-ET.htm

no i haven't read the book.

[sparklehorse]

Dawkins certainly isn't as convincing as he thinks he is! He leaves too much hanging in the air.


fivelza, I have read the first 120 pages or so, and flipped through the rest :)
I haven't read the whole book myself, but don't you think you should at least finish it before making statements like the above? ;)

It strikes me that most people make vague statements that its unconvincing, but fail to give more specific reasons why they think that.

[Debbie]

I haven't read the whole book myself, but don't you think you should at least finish it before making statements like the above? ;)

It strikes me that most people make vague statements that its unconvincing, but fail to give more specific reasons why they think that.

Sparklehorse, the way the book is structured allows me to make such statements. Having read some of the book yourself, you will know that the book has a number of sections where arguments for the existence of god are presented by Dawkins, and then dismissed by Dawkins. One does not have to read the book holistically before stating that some of Dawkins' counter arguments are incomplete.

[Mr TB]

I'd agree if God actually proved himself to be the MOST JUST. But most of what we know about God shows him to be anything but just. We've discussed this at length.

You might remember the whole discussion how God overruled Pharaoh's free will just to prove how great he (God) is. How 'just' is that? And part of the proof was to kill every first-born (completely innocent children). How 'just' is that?

I am very glad that you broad that discussion on Pharaoh's free will to the front again... You already forgot that you did not take the whole passage into view and came to your conclusion...

Should i start the explanation again just to leave you without words..?

[nthdimension]

awesome implications of discovering a mile-long image of ourselves next door on Mars
What image?

[LoneGunman]

no don't bring up the apparent items on Cydonia and other places on Mars at this point - stick with the clearly known - otherwise you're doing your argument a disservice :P

[texo]

What image?

Who mentioned the "face" on Mars? Has that person edited his/her post? Anyone trying to use the "face" as evidence of anything at all should take a look here:

Bad Astronomy: The Top Ten Astronomy Images of 2006 (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/12/27/the-top-ten-astronomy-images-of-2006/)

The European Space Agency also has a cool animation (http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMINCO7BTE_index_0.html). You'll need to squint really hard to see any kind of "face".

[Electrra]

I've read The God Delusion.

Before I read it I believed in Spinoza's god. Now I realise that exchanging the word god for universe is simply my way of making up for linguistic failing.
The universe, nature and life are such wonderous, beautiful things which so fill me, that my desire to grant it (collectively) the most grandeous title it is worthy of, is great.
Unfortunately that very act is one which ulitmately robs these greats of their importance and wonder.

[Neo]

I am very glad that you broad that discussion on Pharaoh's free will to the front again... You already forgot that you did not take the whole passage into view and came to your conclusion...

Should i start the explanation again just to leave you without words..?

If you like....

Last time we had this discussion, you first denied God interfered (obviously never read the actual passage) and then said, if true, you'll admit God is responsible for all murders and rapes. Then when you realised you were caught out, you started waffling about how bad Pharaoh was..... Shall I find your own posts for you?

[Electrra]

a sermon on the majesty universe and the vehicle of science to enrich our understanding (http://youtube.com/watch?v=jJOpDLjpSYI&mode=related&search=)

in fact the whole "beyond belief" series available on youtube is very interesting
melvin konner discusses the biased nature of dawkin's book and the potentially detrimental effect it can have on the arguement for science vs religion

[sparklehorse]

Sounds interesting. Do you have some more info in non-video form?

[DragonLogos]

Well I'm down to the last few pages

[Mr TB]

If you like....

Last time we had this discussion, you first denied God interfered (obviously never read the actual passage) and then said, if true, you'll admit God is responsible for all murders and rapes. Then when you realised you were caught out, you started waffling about how bad Pharaoh was..... Shall I find your own posts for you?

You are a real big joker are you not... do you really take everything that literally..., should actually expect that from a hardheaded atheist unreasonable atheist like you who only wants to bastardise the bible.

You're to obtuse it was a remark in despondense afterwards straightened out with a proper explanation of what happened in Egypt...

Your companion NICK333 also bastardise the bible with incident of LOT at SODOM until he could only swear at at logic explanation of the proceedings poor man...

And so it is the same with you...

[Electrra]

I think it is preferential to argue your point rather than call people names.
You will have more success in convincing people of your view or even allowing them to contemplate it.
This applies to many posters and not just the above post.

[gareth6pike]

Hi
I'm new here.
I checked on www.richarddawkins.net and cannot find any listing for atheist groups in South Africa, which seems incredible. Does anybody have information about such groups in SA? More relevantly in Durban?

[Electrra]

Beyond Belief 06

Unfortunately there is only video transcripts (http://beyondbelief2006.org/) of the conference.


However they do have a list of recommended reading here. (http://beyondbelief2006.org/Recommended%20Reading/)

[Electrra]

gareth i found this:

Letter by the Chairman f the southern african atheists association (http://www.dlc.fi/~etkirja/SouthernAfrica.htm)

[fivelza]

Can I ask what atheists (in all sincerity) would discuss at a get together?

[Nod]

Can I ask what atheists (in all sincerity) would discuss at a get together?

Sport, politics and woman?

[fivelza]

Ok, didn't want to imply that only religions have a need to get together and discuss stuff ;)

[Electrra]

in fact the same reasons why religious folk get together...

the fostering of a social community of like minded people, to engage in the sharing of value and ideals and to reinforce a supportive environment

[Nod]

Religion, IMO, doesn't make very good conversation while braai-ing.

[fivelza]

in fact the same reasons why religious folk get together...

the fostering of a social community of like minded people, to engage in the sharing of value and ideals and to reinforce a supportive environment

I know we are potentially derailing the thread, but as I have been lead to believe, an atheist is someone who does'nt believe in god. Would that imply that anyone who is non-religious (probably not the most correct term) is automatically an atheist or is there a choice involved?


Religion, IMO, doesn't make very good conversation while braai-ing.

LOL, not at all, the way I braai people would swear I was making a burnt offering :D

[Nod]

I know we are potentially derailing the thread, but as I have been lead to believe, an atheist is someone who does'nt believe in god. Would that imply that anyone who is non-religious (probably not the most correct term) is automatically an atheist or is there a choice involved?


You can be non-religious but spiritual.

[fivelza]

You can be non-religious but spiritual.

Agreed. So let's say you are spiritual, could that make you an atheist?

[noxibox]

Basically a theist is someone who has a belief in one or more gods. Otherwise you are an atheist, i.e. without a belief in one or more gods.

Is there an agreed meaning to the term spiritual?

[Neo]

Is there an agreed meaning to the term spiritual?

Well, at the above mentioned braai's, a lot of theists and atheists tend to get quiet 'spiritualised' :)

[fivelza]

Well, at the above mentioned braai's, a lot of theists and atheists tend to get quiet 'spiritualised' :)

ROFL...that was very well put in the context of the thread :D

[Neo]

To get back on thread (before dodo derails it again)....

Debbie, the book seems to pick up after the point you stopped (I think it's around 'Why there is almost certainly no God')

Dawkins asks the question why there should be religion in the first place as it's not a direct requirement of natural selection.

So how did it originate and what purpose does it fulfill?

[Electrra]

actually Dawkins postulates that religion possibly is a consequence of natural selection and that religious ideal, behaviours and rituals developed through a) memetic selection b) natural selection

in other words religious behaviours and beliefs could have resulted in outcomes, either directly or indirectly, that favour genetic selection of those who exhibit these behaviours and beliefs (through partner selection) (e.g. favouring those who engage in altruistic behaviours or the acquistition of power/authorative positions within the community)
and/or
religious behaviours and beliefs could have resulted in outomes, either directly or indirectly, that favour the transference of religious memes within the cultural communities (e.g. the idea that respect for others is good/valued has many positive outcomes for yourself and others and hence it is a meme that has a high survival rate)

[sparklehorse]

I checked on www.richarddawkins.net and cannot find any listing for atheist groups in South Africa, which seems incredible. Does anybody have information about such groups in SA? More relevantly in Durban?
I'd be interested too if you find more info. http://skeptic.za.org/ might interest you.


You can be non-religious but spiritual.
Agreed. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unweaving_the_Rainbow, another book written by Dawkins

[BeVonk!]

I have not read Dawkin’s book, but have read some of the arguments for and against on this thread. I’m no hardcore philosopher but only a seeker that’s done a few rounds around the block of life. My comments/questions are as follows:

1)Does Dawkins deny the existence of a spiritual realm and a spiritual consciousness? If he denies the reality of this he will declare man to be matter in motion only – and what then sets man apart from dead matter like rocks, tables and chairs? Why is man then so different from the rest of the animal kingdom? To deny that man is very different and far more complex and advanced would be foolish – thus denying one’s own intelligence – and therefore all arguments – including the debate on this book. I have seen no monkey or whale debating philosophy and the meaning of life. To me something is clearly very different about man. I therefore choose to believe I have a spiritual element that sets me apart from rocks, chairs, tables – and monkeys. And if there is indeed a spiritual element then its got some exiting consequences that demands a lifetime of investigation.

2)Dawkins is like a man who lives in a far away country who’s never seen or tasted oranges. He gets reports from travellers about oranges – but then decides to reject the possibility that oranges actually exist based on the fact that he’s never seen or tasted it. Until a man has actually seen and eaten oranges he can find plenty arguments to deny its existence . To me, reading the posts here, he seems to treat God and spiritual experiences (incl. religious experiences) in this manner. To me it’s an arrogant and dishonest approach. Has he ever experimented on this – spending time and effort with those claiming spiritual experiences? He must be a very arrogant man to declare spiritual experiences of others false and delusional.

3)Does he delve into hyperspace and time in his book? A real scientist will deal with this. We humans experience three space and one time dimension a reality only. But there is a good possibility (proven by maths) that there may be many more. If so, then who says God cannot reside in those extra dimensions that man cannot “see” and "feel"? If I were to be a two dimensional being only – and the rest of you were living in a three dimensional world – wouldn’t you have a good laugh at me if I were to write a book denying the existence of the third dimension and all that it may contain? Maybe there is a God in hyperspace having a good laugh at Dawkins.

4)In my pursuits for knowledge and understanding I have discovered this weird thing … the more I seem to know the more I don’t know. For every one piece of knowledge I gain I get attracted by three others to be pursued. It’s maddening and never ending. And mans’ exponential technological advancement shows this phenomenon. To today stand up and say that one knows it all – and that nothing can exist outside of one’s own “full” revelation - would be like a man doing so in the year 200BC. Today’s man would laugh at this arrogant fool. Who can therefore today be so arrogant to say he knows it all – and in his own full revelation there is no God to be found. Talk about an arrogant closed mind.

5)Something in me screams for meaning – the meaning of life. Why am I here, where do I come from, where am I going, is death the end or is there something beyond? What is the meaning of all this? My own intellect does not allow me to accept the notion of a meaningless existence (meaningless matter in space and time coming from nowhere, going nowhere, existing for no reason whatsoever). But one of the “top three” intellectuals of our time has no problem with this meaninglessness. Clearly something is alive in me that is dead in him. What's the use of writing a book which endeavours to convince mankind of the non-existence of God (and religion) if it all means nothing in the end anyway? Why bother being an evangelist for meaninglessness and a zealot for nothing? Someting doesn't add up.

[arf9999]

I have not read Dawkin’s book, but have read some of the arguments for and against on this thread. I’m no hardcore philosopher but only a seeker that’s done a few rounds around the block of life. My comments/questions are as follows:

<snip>

I suggest that you read the book, rather than try to emulate dodo and argue against it second hand.

[Mr TB]

I suggest that you read the book, rather than try to emulate dodo and argue against it second hand.

Yes, please don't be so ignorant to say i class everyone anti-bible as atheists, if you really got hold of my concept, there is 2 gods-
-The true living god YAHWEH
or
-Idolatory.

That is your choice, nothing else...

And Mr Dawkins read his book before commenting on dodo...:D

[BeVonk!]

I suggest that you read the book, rather than try to emulate dodo and argue against it second hand.

Did you even bother to read my arguments? Or did you stop at the first line?

Let me be very frank (do with it what you may):

God reveals Himself to those He chooses - and those who seeks Him diligently. The rest is left to man-made answers like darwinism/naturalism. Even if Mr Dawkins were to write a thousand books stating that God does not exist it will make God no less real to those who have come into a relationship with Him already. Who is Dawkins - or anyone else - to deny what is real to me (and millions of others)?

In the end it is a choice. As with the tree in the garden of Eden (since the beginning) every man has a choice to accept or reject God. From this choice flows consequences. And when man rejects God and things go bad God should not be blamed for all the crap going on in the world. God is not the source of man's suffering - man's choices are. God does not send any man to hell - man chooses his desitiny. God wants man to accept and love Him out his own choice and free will - and never forces Himself onto anyone. Real love comes from free will. If God were to force Himself onto man, man will not accept and obey Him out of free will but out of fear. Those who found God will understand what I'm saying. I do not expect others (like Dawkins) to do so.

Dawkins' theories are for those living in western overabundance and luxury. People like myself have found God in deep suffering and desperation. Often God is to be found where and when life is at it's hardest - where and when man has run out of fancy theories and needs a saviour.

I know where I came from and where I'm going. In God my life has found meaning - and a bright future. In Jesus (and because of Jesus) death to me is now a door to completeness and healing. Dawkins' theories sells hell to man early.

I will leave it there.

[fivelza]

Did you even bother to read my arguments? Or did you stop at the first line?


Trafeye, the thread is about the book hence the comment to your comments. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments but like me, you can't really debate something you haven't read.

[PostmanPot]

I will leave it there.

thanks!

[nthdimension]

I have not read Dawkin’s book, but have read some of the arguments for and against on this thread. I’m no hardcore philosopher but only a seeker that’s done a few rounds around the block of life. My comments/questions are as follows
Humans are more complex than other living things. No unseen spiritual existence required.

Dawkins would request that those who claim oranges are the greatest send him some. If they existed they could FedEx them to him.

Living in two dimensions there would be tests that could be carried out to demonstrate a third, just as we can demonstrate there are at least four, although we cannot see the fourth.

Scientists do not claim to know everything.

Religion seems to serve those who find life meaningless. It is their crutch. The rest of us accept life for itself.

[nthdimension]

In the end it is a choice. As with the tree in the garden of Eden
God knew the 'choice' that would be made beforehand.

[Electrra]

Even though you have not read the book i think you ask relevant questions.
These are my thoughts in return:


I have not read Dawkin’s book, but have read some of the arguments for and against on this thread. I’m no hardcore philosopher but only a seeker that’s done a few rounds around the block of life. My comments/questions are as follows:

1)Does Dawkins deny the existence of a spiritual realm and a spiritual consciousness? If he denies the reality of this he will declare man to be matter in motion only – and what then sets man apart from dead matter like rocks, tables and chairs? Why is man then so different from the rest of the animal kingdom? To deny that man is very different and far more complex and advanced would be foolish – thus denying one’s own intelligence – and therefore all arguments – including the debate on this book. I have seen no monkey or whale debating philosophy and the meaning of life. To me something is clearly very different about man. I therefore choose to believe I have a spiritual element that sets me apart from rocks, chairs, tables – and monkeys. And if there is indeed a spiritual element then its got some exiting consequences that demands a lifetime of investigation.

I did not encounter one statement that refers to the existance of a spiritual realm and would be very surprised to find one. I think acquicing on that point would be the top a slipperly slope back to religion. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. And that frames his (and my) primary perspective on all you have mentioned above.
As you stated humans are complex. Far more complex in makeup than a rock. But as complex as many other living creatures. The living vs the non-living is a distinction in complexity and organisation. And they are all explainable. Unfortunately the addition of a soul or spirit into the equation does not add to the explanation of the difference between the living and the non, because the very distiction that presupposed that one will have spirit or soul is the very distinction that does not necessitate their existance.
Also we do not speak monkey or whale, none of us have ever been one, so we cannot really say what the experiences of either are. We can only place our model of the world over theirs and beg for a comparison. We have spoken language - so do many other animals. We have social organisation - same as many other animals. We have written language and this is one of the technologies that we have that no other animal seems to have. It is also what allows for the development of learning, technology and transference and sustainability of information. But do not presuppose that being able to discuss epistemology now makes us more advanced. This is a fallacy.
The whale is far more superior to us when it comes to living in the sea. THe monkey is far more superior when it comes to living in the tops of trees. Ants are far more superior when it comes to living in the trees. Their evolutionary path has shaped them to be fitting for their environment.



2)Dawkins is like a man who lives in a far away country who’s never seen or tasted oranges. He gets reports from travellers about oranges – but then decides to reject the possibility that oranges actually exist based on the fact that he’s never seen or tasted it. Until a man has actually seen and eaten oranges he can find plenty arguments to deny its existence . To me, reading the posts here, he seems to treat God and spiritual experiences (incl. religious experiences) in this manner. To me it’s an arrogant and dishonest approach. Has he ever experimented on this – spending time and effort with those claiming spiritual experiences? He must be a very arrogant man to declare spiritual experiences of others false and delusional.

How do you know that?
I have had a number of life changing experiences - "religious experiences" - visions, ephiphanies, being One with the Universe and loosing all sense of identity (ego dissolution), morbid fear of the Other (this and the one previous are both widely research and widely considered to the the two variants of "religious experience").
I am an atheist.
We do not know anything about Richard's personal experience.



3) Does he delve into hyperspace and time in his book? A real scientist will deal with this. We humans experience three space and one time dimension a reality only. But there is a good possibility (proven by maths) that there may be many more. If so, then who says God cannot reside in those extra dimensions that man cannot “see” and "feel"? If I were to be a two dimensional being only – and the rest of you were living in a three dimensional world – wouldn’t you have a good laugh at me if I were to write a book denying the existence of the third dimension and all that it may contain? Maybe there is a God in hyperspace having a good laugh at Dawkins.

Again, he is an evolutionary biologist, not a physicist. Not all scientists are interchangeable. For books on cosmology and physics read:
Charles Harper
Science and Ultimate Reality: Quantum Theory, Cosmology, and Complexity, (Co-ed. with John Barrow and Paul Davies) Cambridge University Press, 2004
There are 11 proposed dimensions, btw.



4)In my pursuits for knowledge and understanding I have discovered this weird thing … the more I seem to know the more I don’t know. For every one piece of knowledge I gain I get attracted by three others to be pursued. It’s maddening and never ending. And mans’ exponential technological advancement shows this phenomenon. To today stand up and say that one knows it all – and that nothing can exist outside of one’s own “full” revelation - would be like a man doing so in the year 200BC. Today’s man would laugh at this arrogant fool. Who can therefore today be so arrogant to say he knows it all – and in his own full revelation there is no God to be found. Talk about an arrogant closed mind.

I would like to comment here but I do not understand you.



5)Something in me screams for meaning – the meaning of life. Why am I here, where do I come from, where am I going, is death the end or is there something beyond? What is the meaning of all this? My own intellect does not allow me to accept the notion of a meaningless existence (meaningless matter in space and time coming from nowhere, going nowhere, existing for no reason whatsoever). But one of the “top three” intellectuals of our time has no problem with this meaninglessness. Clearly something is alive in me that is dead in him. What's the use of writing a book which endeavours to convince mankind of the non-existence of God (and religion) if it all means nothing in the end anyway? Why bother being an evangelist for meaninglessness and a zealot for nothing? Someting doesn't add up.
Believing in Science does not rob the Universe of its meaning. Being an atheist does not mean that you are dead inside, that you see meaninglessness everywhere. Far from it!! Life on this planet is so diverse and complex and wonderous that it is illuminating and exciting and inspiring. Our dance through the cosmos and the dance of energy within all matter is fascinating and enriching and questing to learn more and experience more and understand more of our Universe is meaningful and rewarding.

[sparklehorse]

I have not read Dawkin’s book, but have read some of the arguments for and against on this thread. I’m no hardcore philosopher but only a seeker that’s done a few rounds around the block of life. My comments/questions are as follows:You really should read the book before you argue based on what was said in this thread. The thread does not come close to the book. If you are really a seeker like you said, you will not have a problem exploring this viewpoint as well.


1)Does Dawkins deny the existence of a spiritual realm and a spiritual consciousness? If he denies the reality of this he will declare man to be matter in motion only – and what then sets man apart from dead matter like rocks, tables and chairs? Why is man then so different from the rest of the animal kingdom? To deny that man is very different and far more complex and advanced would be foolish – thus denying one’s own intelligence – and therefore all arguments – including the debate on this book. I have seen no monkey or whale debating philosophy and the meaning of life. To me something is clearly very different about man. I therefore choose to believe I have a spiritual element that sets me apart from rocks, chairs, tables – and monkeys. And if there is indeed a spiritual element then its got some exiting consequences that demands a lifetime of investigation.He does not deny any of this. This is why you should read the book before making your arguments - you assume things that is simply wrong. You will actually find that you are in agreement with Dawkins as far as the exiting consequences that demands a lifetime of investigation.


2)Dawkins is like a man who lives in a far away country who’s never seen or tasted oranges. He gets reports from travellers about oranges – but then decides to reject the possibility that oranges actually exist based on the fact that he’s never seen or tasted it. Until a man has actually seen and eaten oranges he can find plenty arguments to deny its existence . To me, reading the posts here, he seems to treat God and spiritual experiences (incl. religious experiences) in this manner. To me it’s an arrogant and dishonest approach. Has he ever experimented on this – spending time and effort with those claiming spiritual experiences? He must be a very arrogant man to declare spiritual experiences of others false and delusional.He can say the exact thing about you for not reading his book before arguing.


3)Does he delve into hyperspace and time in his book? A real scientist will deal with this. We humans experience three space and one time dimension a reality only. But there is a good possibility (proven by maths) that there may be many more. If so, then who says God cannot reside in those extra dimensions that man cannot “see” and "feel"? If I were to be a two dimensional being only – and the rest of you were living in a three dimensional world – wouldn’t you have a good laugh at me if I were to write a book denying the existence of the third dimension and all that it may contain? Maybe there is a God in hyperspace having a good laugh at Dawkins.God could be in a lot of places, that doesn't mean he is.


4)In my pursuits for knowledge and understanding I have discovered this weird thing … the more I seem to know the more I don’t know. For every one piece of knowledge I gain I get attracted by three others to be pursued. It’s maddening and never ending. And mans’ exponential technological advancement shows this phenomenon. To today stand up and say that one knows it all – and that nothing can exist outside of one’s own “full” revelation - would be like a man doing so in the year 200BC. Today’s man would laugh at this arrogant fool. Who can therefore today be so arrogant to say he knows it all – and in his own full revelation there is no God to be found. Talk about an arrogant closed mind.
I havent read the whole book yet, so I won't comment on this. But I doubt he is saying that he knows all.


5)Something in me screams for meaning – the meaning of life. Why am I here, where do I come from, where am I going, is death the end or is there something beyond? What is the meaning of all this? My own intellect does not allow me to accept the notion of a meaningless existence (meaningless matter in space and time coming from nowhere, going nowhere, existing for no reason whatsoever). But one of the “top three” intellectuals of our time has no problem with this meaninglessness. Clearly something is alive in me that is dead in him. What's the use of writing a book which endeavours to convince mankind of the non-existence of God (and religion) if it all means nothing in the end anyway? Why bother being an evangelist for meaninglessness and a zealot for nothing? Someting doesn't add up.I feel the same way about wanting to find meaning in life. But I refuse to find meaning in life by believing in something that there is no evidence for just because it's comforting. And what if this life is all we have? Would you rather spend it in denial or would you try to find out as much as possible while you're living in case you never get a chance again?

[Electrra]

Paul Davies discusses meaningfulness of the universe from a scientists perspective (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1620224767326138879&q=beyond+belief)

[sparklehorse]

a sermon on the majesty universe and the vehicle of science to enrich our understanding (http://youtube.com/watch?v=jJOpDLjpSYI&mode=related&search=)

in fact the whole "beyond belief" series available on youtube is very interesting
melvin konner discusses the biased nature of dawkin's book and the potentially detrimental effect it can have on the arguement for science vs religion

Looks like there are 4 parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZhf7PjdJfk

In which video does Melvin Konner discuss Dawkins?

[Electrra]

session nine on google video (http://video.google.com/url?vidurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideopl ay%3Fdocid%3D5682525648026627936%26q%3Dbeyond%2Bbe lief&docid=5682525648026627936&ev=v&esrc=sr14&usg=AL29H214pCs6Eg3_BEMh6ukTXgNolOpRVQ)

[sparklehorse]

Isn't there a smaller clip? Oh well.

[Mr TB]

Humans are more complex than other living things. No unseen spiritual existence required.

Dawkins would request that those who claim oranges are the greatest send him some. If they existed they could FedEx them to him.

Living in two dimensions there would be tests that could be carried out to demonstrate a third, just as we can demonstrate there are at least four, although we cannot see the fourth.

Scientists do not claim to know everything.

Religion seems to serve those who find life meaningless. It is their crutch. The rest of us accept life for itself.

And your crutch?:D Well is the science and the biology in which god reveals himself to you, the Master Creator and you will keep on searching trying to find the origin of his wonderful creation... You will not find it because it started with a word...wonderful:)

You are searching the same god you are dismissing's creation, what a contradiction....:confused:

[arf9999]

Did you even bother to read my arguments? Or did you stop at the first line? I actually read your post. I posted because Dawkins addresses most of your points in the book to some or other extent, and if you read the book you would be able to debate what he says, rather than what you've heard he says.

The thread is about this book, if you choose to debate it without knowledge of the subject, don't expect people to take your view seriously (no matter how valid you feel that it is). I have a copy of the book that I will happily lend to you if you like, but I have a feeling that you do not want to read it, but would rather critique it by remote control.



Let me be very frank (do with it what you may):

God reveals Himself to those He chooses - and those who seeks Him diligently. The rest is left to man-made answers like darwinism/naturalism. Even if Mr Dawkins were to write a thousand books stating that God does not exist it will make God no less real to those who have come into a relationship with Him already. Who is Dawkins - or anyone else - to deny what is real to me (and millions of others)?Who are you to tell me or Richard Dawkins any different? Evangelism is ok for Christianity but not for Atheism?


In the end it is a choice. As with the tree in the garden of Eden (since the beginning) every man has a choice to accept or reject God. Highly simplistic. I do not reject god. I do not acknowledge that he exists, therefore I cannot reject him.


From this choice flows consequences. And when man rejects God and things go bad God should not be blamed for all the crap going on in the world. God is not the source of man's suffering - man's choices are. God does not send any man to hell - man chooses his desitiny. God wants man to accept and love Him out his own choice and free will - and never forces Himself onto anyone. Real love comes from free will. If God were to force Himself onto man, man will not accept and obey Him out of free will but out of fear. Those who found God will understand what I'm saying. I do not expect others (like Dawkins) to do so. I could replace the word god with "Zeus", "Allah", "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" or anything else and the sentence would mean the same thing. Basically you are arguing that you should just accept what can never be proved, "have faith in my god because we're the right ones". You can't rationally argue something that is not rational, so rather don't.


Dawkins' theories are for those living in western overabundance and luxury. People like myself have found God in deep suffering and desperation. Often God is to be found where and when life is at it's hardest - where and when man has run out of fancy theories and needs a saviour.It couldn;t be that those people living in abundance have the education and freedom to be able to reject the dogma of religion? Just a thought.


I know where I came from and where I'm going. In God my life has found meaning - and a bright future. In Jesus (and because of Jesus) death to me is now a door to completeness and healing. If your life has meaning, why do you need to die to be complete? My life has meaning and I don't need any fairy stories about an afterlife to make me feel better about myself.

[noxibox]

I could replace the word god with "buddha", "Allah", "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" or anything else and the sentence would mean the same thing.
Just a minor point that Buddha was not a deity and did not claim to be one.

[arf9999]

Just a minor point that Buddha was not a deity and did not claim to be one.

point noted. For clarity I'll edit the post.. how about Zeus, Odin... ?

[Mr TB]

I actually read your post. I posted because Dawkins addresses most of your points in the book to some or other extent, and if you read the book you would be able to debate what he says, rather than what you've heard he says.

The thread is about this book, if you choose to debate it without knowledge of the subject, don't expect people to take your view seriously (no matter how valid you feel that it is). I have a copy of the book that I will happily lend to you if you like, but I have a feeling that you do not want to read it, but would rather critique it by remote control.

Who are you to tell me or Richard Dawkins any different? Evangelism is ok for Christianity but not for Atheism?

Highly simplistic. I do not reject god. I do not acknowledge that he exists, therefore I cannot reject him.

I could replace the word god with "buddha", "Allah", "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" or anything else and the sentence would mean the same thing. Basically you are arguing that you should just accept what can never be proved, "have faith in my god because we're the right ones". You can't rationally argue something that is not rational, so rather don't.

It couldn;t be that those people living in abundance have the education and freedom to be able to reject the dogma of religion? Just a thought.

If your life has meaning, why do you need to die to be complete? My life has meaning and I don't need any fairy stories about an afterlife to make me feel better about myself.

A very interesting statement made in a videoclip on "youtube"

"Most of the children continue to study science after school are those with a sense of wonder about them, those with a religious background..."

[arf9999]

A very interesting statement made in a videoclip on "youtube"

"Most of the children continue to study science after school are those with a sense of wonder about them, those with a religious background..."

Which explains why most scientists are atheists...

(I don't really know if this is completely true, or have a reference, but it doesn't seem to be a requirement anymore in this discussion. I'll just say I read somewhere or heard it at a bar, or... I don't know, maybe say I saw it on youtube- there are a few million videos there, nobody will check.)

[Mr TB]

Which explains why most scientists are atheists...

(I don't really know if this is completely true, or have a reference, but it doesn't seem to be a requirement anymore in this discussion. I'll just say I read somewhere or heard it at a bar, or... I don't know, maybe say I saw it on youtube- there are a few million videos there, nobody will check.)

YOU missed the problem this is going to cause...scientists is promoting atheism, the statement indicates that atheists do not enroll for further education in scientism, the moment evryone is atheist no one enrolls for scientism...mmm...

Fully atheist no further development in scientism and we will roll back to the...
You should be able to grasp the idea shouldn't you?

[Mr TB]

QUOTE: ARF999

"I could replace the word god with "buddha", "Allah", "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" or anything else and the sentence would mean the same thing. Basically you are arguing that you should just accept what can never be proved, "have faith in my god because we're the right ones". You can't rationally argue something that is not rational, so rather don't."

No ARF i am not telling you i am right, or we are right... all i beg from you is to give christ a chance in your life, he bought you with precious blood on a cross and he cannot wait for you to accept that payment so that he can have mercy on you...Its about you ARF not me...

[Rkootknir]

No ARF i am not telling you i am right, or we are right... all i beg from you is to give christ a chance in your life, he bought you with precious blood on a cross and he cannot wait for you to accept that payment so that he can have mercy on you...Its about you ARF not me...Not directed at me, but I'll add my 2c anyway: I gave Him a chance (for 19 years of my life that I'll never get back) and then I learned that there are idiots like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Duane Gish and many others who lie continuously and without remorse about just about all aspects of science in order to prop up their beliefs.

This was apparently supposed to make my faith in God stronger and yet all it did was destroy it. Yes, I thank Young Earth Creationism and its unthinking, imbecilic proponents for turning me into an atheist.

As far as the God of the Bible is concerned: If He exists, He can go screw Himself. I will never debase myself before something that is so completely devoid of decency or truth.

[Nick333]

Not directed at me, but I'll add my 2c anyway: I gave Him a chance (for 19 years of my life that I'll never get back) and then I learned that there are idiots like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Duane Gish and many others who lie continuously and without remorse about just about all aspects of science in order to prop up their beliefs.

This was apparently supposed to make my faith in God stronger and yet all it did was destroy it. Yes, I thank Young Earth Creationism and its unthinking, imbecilic proponents for turning me into an atheist.

As far as the God of the Bible is concerned: If He exists, He can go screw Himself. I will never debase myself before something that is so completely devoid of decency or truth.

Thanks for that dude.:) Your story gives me a bit of hope for the future of our species.

[Mr TB]

Not directed at me, but I'll add my 2c anyway: I gave Him a chance (for 19 years of my life that I'll never get back) and then I learned that there are idiots like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Duane Gish and many others who lie continuously and without remorse about just about all aspects of science in order to prop up their beliefs.

This was apparently supposed to make my faith in God stronger and yet all it did was destroy it. Yes, I thank Young Earth Creationism and its unthinking, imbecilic proponents for turning me into an atheist.

As far as the God of the Bible is concerned: If He exists, He can go screw Himself. I will never debase myself before something that is so completely devoid of decency or truth.

Sorry I don't want to convert you or anything. As far as creationism is concerned, i am not even interested in their bright ideas. Salvation depends on the cross nothing else... anycase you are quite tough... for me, yes the friend at school that brought christ under my attention... he visited me a 2 yrs ago and from the talk it is clear he do not believe god exist...

The funny thing is about 20 yrs ago my dad blew a hole in his own head... i was mad mad mad, how can a good god let my daddy do some silly thing like that? I never went to church regularly but then 5 yrs ago it all changed and i know god is a good god... the bad things is certainly not his fault...

[Edwe]

Not directed at me, but I'll add my 2c anyway: I gave Him a chance (for 19 years of my life that I'll never get back) and then I learned that there are idiots like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Duane Gish and many others who lie continuously and without remorse about just about all aspects of science in order to prop up their beliefs.

If you based your 19 years of religion on humans rather than God and Christian ideas, you missed the point to begin with. Maybe you want to give the real thing a try?



This was apparently supposed to make my faith in God stronger and yet all it did was destroy it. Yes, I thank Young Earth Creationism and its unthinking, imbecilic proponents for turning me into an atheist.

It's been a while since I last visited a religious debate thread, but apparantly we're doing a repeat of the "Creationalism is imbecilic" episode. ;) Personally (and I am by far not the only proponent of this theory), I believe that Biblical Creationalism is meant metaphorically. I previously explained this theory and argued for it from the bottom of this (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=60648&page=12) page, if you are interested in reading it.



As far as the God of the Bible is concerned: If He exists, He can go screw Himself. I will never debase myself before something that is so completely devoid of decency or truth.

Wait, do I understand this correctly? Are you saying that, if God exists, you don't care because he doesn't exist (is not true)? :confused:

[sparklehorse]

If you based your 19 years of religion on humans rather than God and Christian ideas, you missed the point to begin with. Maybe you want to give the real thing a try?Can you give me a good reason why your religion is the real thing as opposed to all the others?


Wait, do I understand this correctly? Are you saying that, if God exists, you don't care because he doesn't exist (is not true)? :confused:No, he is saying that, if God exists, he doesn't care because He is untruthful.

[Rkootknir]

If you based your 19 years of religion on humans rather than God and Christian ideas, you missed the point to begin with. Maybe you want to give the real thing a try?Humans? Did I say that somewhere? If so, I should really try to improve my writing.

I believed in Jesus Christ and that he died for me on a cross. I believed that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. I thought materialism and humanism were attempts by Man to raise himself to the level of God and so a mortal sin. In short, I was a perfectly normal, almost fundamentalist, Christian.
It's been a while since I last visited a religious debate thread, but apparantly we're doing a repeat of the "Creationalism is imbecilic" episode. ;) Personally (and I am by far not the only proponent of this theory), I believe that Biblical Creationalism is meant metaphorically. I previously explained this theory and argued for it from the bottom of this (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=60648&page=12) page, if you are interested in reading it.The general definition of a Young Earth Creationist is somebody who believes in the literal truth of the events recounted in Genesis & the rest of the Bible. So, amongst others, they believe:
-the Earth is 6 000 years old
-there was a global flood
-Noah built a party boat and retained several billion species on it (at least 2 of each in fact)
-and many other ridiculous claims.

See for example: www.drdino.com www.answersingenesis.org www.icr.org

IMO if you believe this, you are seriously deluded.
Wait, do I understand this correctly? Are you saying that, if God exists, you don't care because he doesn't exist (is not true)? :confused:I'm saying that even if the God of the Bible exists I will not worship Him. I don't think Him and I would get along. :)

[Mr TB]

Humans? Did I say that somewhere? If so, I should really try to improve my writing.

I believed in Jesus Christ and that he died for me on a cross. I believed that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. I thought materialism and humanism were attempts by Man to raise himself to the level of God and so a mortal sin. In short, I was a perfectly normal, almost fundamentalist, Christian.The general definition of a Young Earth Creationist is somebody who believes in the literal truth of the events recounted in Genesis & the rest of the Bible. So, amongst others, they believe:
-the Earth is 6 000 years old
-there was a global flood
-Noah built a party boat and retained several billion species on it (at least 2 of each in fact)
-and many other ridiculous claims.

See for example: www.drdino.com www.answersingenesis.org www.icr.org

IMO if you believe this, you are seriously deluded.I'm saying that even if the God of the Bible exists I will not worship Him. I don't think Him and I would get along. :)

RKOOTNIR , please don't take offense, the war in heaven do you know about it and what happened?

[noxibox]

the war in heaven do you know about it and what happened?
Yahweh is a megalomaniac dictator and the freedom fighter Lucifer rebelled to free heaven from his reign of terror?

Naturally the great dictator tells a different story. But don't they always?

[Mr TB]

Yahweh is a megalomaniac dictator and the freedom fighter Lucifer rebelled to free heaven from his reign of terror?
I don't know why you keep on making this very short sited, unreasonable, stupid, childish,idiotic nearly brain-dead remarks?

The referee is often blamed sending one player of with a yellow card defending his try-line, the player must be stupid to get involved the referee erred...

Now why did god not blot Lucifer the freedom fighter out he is the dictator..., he has the power, your line of thinking is abusive and confused...

[DragonLogos]

Well one reason would be that neither exist

[Mr TB]

Well one reason would be that neither exist

Let me start with one explanation:

In the company i worked for the licence numbers of the win98 packages were not installed correctly.
Some years later we had a visit for microsoft and the company instaliing the packages were called to corrected this problem. My directors became aware of the fact that this problem can be corrected with a shortcut that take hours or the long route taking days. The PC company used the shortcut.

Once finished with the shortcut method they were advised of the implications and required to do it correctly the long route. They were not paid for wasting their time. THEY WERE LEFT TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN WAY AND THEN ONLY ADMOLISHED. They knew what were right so let me CONTINUE...

[Mr TB]

CONTINUED...
lucifer knew who god was but he got proud and exalted himself above god...
god is love, he is a lover(don't be narrow-minded and think sex like usual),he loves giving... he gave his only begotten son so than we can live... o man..

If he just blot satan out there will be fear in heaven, his creation will be afraid of him and that way it should not be , so the angels go into battle and satan + 1/3 of the angels are thrown out of heaven onto the earth...

GEN 1v2 read "the earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep..."

[alma-tadema]

The God Delusion is quite good, the only criticism is that it isn't very original after all why write a book of several hundred pages debunking fairies? Well the reason is that deluded fairy believers doesn't kill and form massive cults of death! Interesting just how *unnatural* religious believe seems to be. The research by Israeli psychologist was shocking and quite obviously suppressed and efficiently buried, after all it scientifically proved that religion disables basic morals and empathy and we can't have that! Science and Religion has no conflict! (tm).

[Mr TB]

Yip he totally owned that guy.

That pastor is such an arrogant twit that I felt like fisting his face via my screen. He accuses Dawkins of being arrogant yet he's the one displaying arrogance!

For anybody interested, you can view a short clip here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=G5yjqFH-SUQ) from the documentary with the pastor displaying just how obnoxious evangelists can be.

The full documentary can be found here (http://www.mininova.org/tor/402681) or here (http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/840927/Dawkins_The_Root_of_All_Evil_The_God_Delusion_The_ Virus_of_Faith_2006) where Dawkins makes this guy look like the ass that he is. (NB: file is 600MB)

Well Mahatma Ghandi who you use as signature will certainly find your love for violent behavior quite unacceptable...
One of the 3 most intelligent persons in world? finding it necessary to make a fool of a obnoxious evangelist to prove his point...?
How much did Dawkins pay the prostitute to come up with his story...?

I think for the time i place Dawkins in the same category as the prostitute:D

[SuperAntMD]

How much did Dawkins pay the prostitute to come up with his story...?

I think for the time i place Dawkins in the same category as the prostitute:D

Not to jump in a little late or anything but: COME ON!?!

Are you joking? This is so typical of religious maniacs: You can not believe that a trusted member of the clergy has sexual tastes he claims to despise even though it is a well documented occurrence throughout the christian world, so instead you try to destroy a completely innocent mans reputation in order to protect your world view.

Is a little reminiscent of believing in illogical, impossible beings instead of accepting the facts that are presented in overwhelming force.

In what way, exactly, is dawkins in the same category as the prostitute?

[Mr TB]

Not to jump in a little late or anything but: COME ON!?!

Are you joking? This is so typical of religious maniacs: You can not believe that a trusted member of the clergy has sexual tastes he claims to despise even though it is a well documented occurrence throughout the christian world, so instead you try to destroy a completely innocent mans reputation in order to protect your world view.

Is a little reminiscent of believing in illogical, impossible beings instead of accepting the facts that are presented in overwhelming force.

In what way, exactly, is dawkins in the same category as the prostitute?

I never thought of it, but did that bloke come forward out of his own? No sir he laughed all the way to the bank after telling his story!
DAWKINS made himself guilty of BRIBERY! Or do you aprove of bribery?

The facts can be 100%, but that guy was paid a bribe to tell his story where is the INTEGRITY?
I then question your workmanship if you are willing to do something like that...

[arf9999]

Dodo, you're an idiot.
1. When Dawkins showed the pastor (Ted Haggard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard)) to be an insane raving bigot, nobody knew he was homosexual and was hiring male prostitutes.
2. The revelations about the homosexual incident were never publicised by Dawkins (although I'm sure he had a private giggle). So how could he have benefited financially from it?
3. The issue is not about Dawkins, it is about hypocrisy in the church.


edit: ...form the wikipedia article:
Haggard is to be counseled by a team including Jack Hayford and Tommy Barnett who intend to "perform a thorough analysis of Haggard’s mental, spiritual, emotional and physical life", including the use of polygraph tests. The team was to include James Dobson, who later stepped aside, citing time constraints.:eek:

[Mr TB]

Dodo, you're an idiot.
1. When Dawkins showed the pastor (Ted Haggard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard)) to be an insane raving bigot, nobody knew he was homosexual and was hiring male prostitutes.
2. The revelations about the homosexual incident were never publicised by Dawkins (although I'm sure he had a private giggle). So how could he have benefited financially from it?
3. The issue is not about Dawkins, it is about hypocrisy in the church.


edit: ...form the wikipedia article: :eek:

There is hypocrisy in our goverment by the heaps too, don't worry about that or may you are to blind to recognise it.
There is hypocrisy in the school system
There is hypocrisy in local goverment
There is hipocrisy at the workplace and the list go on...
Why will the church be exempted? The church has the least to say but is indeed attacked the most... The church is misused by hypocrites like you...

A hypocrite like Hi Flyer must then put down his facts correctlly... oh yes and it does not have to come out of his book as such ok? remember that also, but check the impression hi-flyer creates... and then...

Who actually paid the street whore then?
You don't do something like that for nothing...

[arf9999]

There is hypocrisy in our goverment by the heaps too, don't worry about that or may you are to blind to recognise it.
There is hypocrisy in the school system
There is hypocrisy in local goverment
There is hipocrisy at the workplace and the list go on...
Why will the church be exempted? The church has the least to say but is indeed attacked the most... The church is misused by hypocrites like you...

A hypocrite like Hi Flyer must then put down his facts correctlly... oh yes and it does not have to come out of his book as such ok? remember that also, but check the impression hi-flyer creates... and then...

Who actually paid the street whore then?
You don't do something like that for nothing...

dodo... I'm beginning to see why you haven't read the book... you are unable to even read this thread correctly.

If you read the wikipedia article, it explains why the prostitute made it public... and to be fair, I don't think he was a "street whore", but rather a "rentboy".

Why do you think I a hypocrite? I have many faults, but I don't think hypocrisy is one of them, but maybe you can provide me with an example to back up your statement.