The God Delusion

by Peppermint 103 Replies latest jw friends

  • frankiespeakin

    I think the guy is doing a good service. When you look at all the harm caused by those who are fundamentalist and worship an angry diety that kills people he done like. I mean think of all the people that have died because of these dieties, if he can get enough people to snap out of it, think of all the good that can come out of it.

  • Abaddon

    Well, it looks like the "Poor diddums" award once again goes to traditional religionists

    Some just repeat they believe X because they can't understand Y, as though that actualy meant anything... I have to ask, would an INTELLIGENT creator want people to believe in him by NOT using the intelligence they supposedly have?

    Others feel it is unfair to feel contempt for traditonal religonists who are unwilling to imagine god outside of a box it was placed in by a goat herd several thousand years ago. I suppose sympathy might be more appropriate for such a magnificent display of ignoring the evidence of the world around us.

    Note, I make no claim 'god' doesn't exist, just that traditonal ideas of god are demonstrably wrong...

    I am sorry more traditional religionists are upset silly beliefs are viewed as silly; some of these people would look down their noses at people who believed in Wicca, Animism, Hinduism, et. al., so I really don't feel that much sympathy for them...

    And why "Some very great men and women throughout history have held a deep belief in god" is relevent I don't know Black Swan. Some very great men and women have felt that women were inferior to women; do you believe that too, or the other silly beliefs otherwise great men and women have had?

    However, trying to break out of the cage and;

    ... live a life that I am proud to live based on what I know is good and bad, right and wrong.

    ... is fantastic. You then say;

    Be it that I am this way by evolution or god is not so important for me to know.

    Why on Earth more people cannot think for one minute that bronze-age goatherds with no knowledge of science would write myths, but these myths do not mean that god could not USE EVOLUTION (as there is ample evidence evolution was used), I don't know.

  • Satanus


    The hindu contains more than just spiritual evolutional ideas...

    The Brihat Vishnu Purana states that "the aquatic life precedes the monkey life" and that "the monkey life is the precursor of the human life." The same theory was explained in an interesting way by the dashavatara (ten incarnations). But evolution, as everything else, was the manifestation of the supreme spirit (Atman) as is testified by Chandogya Upanishad. (source: Ancient Indian History and Culture - By Chidambara Kulkarni Orient Longman Ltd. 1974. p.268).

    "The first germ of life was developed by water and heat. Man will traverse the universe, gradually ascending and passing through the rocks, the plants, the worms, insects, fish, serpents, tortoises, wild animals, cattle, and higher animals. These are the transformations declared, from the plant to Brahma, which have to take place in the world." (Manusmriti Book I, sloka 8,9)
    ' Water ascends towards the sky in vapors; from the sun it descends in rain, from the rains are born the plants, and from the plants, animals.' (Manusmriti Book III, sloka 76).
    The change of the body from one species to another is caused by the inflowing of the jiva's nature. Good and bad deeds are not the direct causes of its transformation. They act as breakers of obstacles to the inflow of nature, just as a farmer breaks down obstacles in a water course to let water flow of itself. (Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali, IV: 2, 3.)

    Btw, the first/oldest recorded creation story is in the pagan enuma elish at about 2500 bc. That is about 1000 about a yrs before moses wrote his version.


  • Satanus

    Ps, i would have answered your post sooner, but i got carried away in reading about hinduism, generally.


  • Dansk

    Well, my copy of The God Delusion arrived this morning. I already have three other books on the go, but couldn't resist starting this latest Dawkin's work. Opinion: I have only read the Preface and Chapter 1, but I believe it's going to be another best seller. There is an extremely interesting expose on the truth about those Danish cartoons and the furore it caused throughout the Muslim world. If you don't know already, you'll be shocked at what really happened!


  • lonelysheep

    I stopped at Border's tonight and picked this up. There's also another book I have to read, but this one is first!

    When I finish (whenever that will be-not much time to read for me), I will be sure to post my review.

  • TopHat

    Dawkins idea of the feather and how it evolved is disproved...Dawkins obviouly has not been educated in the difference between feathers and fish scales....

  • TopHat
  • TopHat

    Then the evolutionist says, ‘But you’re on about the Bible—this is religion. As an evolutionist I’m involved in real science.’

    I then respond, ‘Actually, as a creationist, I have no problem with your science; it’s the same science I understand and trust. The argument is not about science or about facts—ultimately, the argument is about how you interpret the facts—and this depends upon your belief about history. The real difference is that we have different “histories” (accounts about what happened in the past), which we use to interpret the science and facts of the present.’

    I then give an example. ‘Let’s consider the science of genetics and natural selection. Evolutionists believe in natural selection—that is real science, as you observe it happening. Well, creationists also believe in natural selection. Evolutionists accept the science of genetics—well, so do creationists.

    ‘However, here is the difference: Evolutionists believe that, over millions of years, one kind of animal has changed into a totally different kind. However, creationists, based on the Bible’s account of origins, believe that God created separate kinds of animals and plants to reproduce their own kind—therefore one kind will not turn into a totally different kind.

    ‘Now this can be tested in the present. The scientific observations support the creationist interpretation that the changes we see are not creating new information. The changes are all within the originally created pool of information of that kind; sorting, shuffling or degrading it. The creationist account of history, based on the Bible, provides the correct basis to interpret the evidence of the present—and real science confirms the interpretation.’

    My point is that if we Christians really understood that all evidence is actually interpreted on the basis of certain presuppositions, then we wouldn’t be in the least bit intimidated by the evolutionists’ supposed ‘evidence.’ We should instead be looking at the evolutionist’s (or old-earther’s) interpretation of the evidence, and how the same evidence could be interpreted within a biblical framework and be confirmed by testable and repeatable science.

    I believe if more creationists did this, they would be less likely to jump at ‘flaky’ evidence that seems startling, but in reality may be being interpreted incorrectly by the creationists themselves in their rush to find the magic-bullet, knock-down, drag-em-out convincing ‘evidence’ against evolution that they think they desperately need.

    The same is true of dating methods. All dating methods suffer, in principle, from the same limitations—whether they are those which are used to support a young world or an old world. Even the famous moondust argument, back when it still seemed that this was an excellent one to use (given the information available), needed to involve assumptions—uniformitarian assumptions, just like radiometric dating does. Even before the error in the measurement of moondust influx was pointed out, evolutionists could rightly counter—how do you know that the dust has always been coming in at the same rate? Of course, such creationist arguments have always been justified in that they are merely turning their own uniformitarian assumptions against them. Creationists can rightly challenge radiometric dating on this same sort of basis, too. Once one understands the assumptions/presuppositions behind dating methods, one realizes that the ‘date’ obtained is actually an interpretation—not a fact!

    The bottom line is that it’s not a matter of who has the better (or the most) ‘facts on their side.’ We need to understand that there are no such things as brute facts—all facts are interpreted. Thus, the next time evolutionists use what seem to be convincing facts for evolution, try to determine the presuppositions they have used to interpret these facts. Then, beginning with the big picture of history from the Bible, look at the same facts through these biblical glasses and interpret them differently. Then, using the real science of the present that an evolutionist also uses, see if that science, when properly understood, confirms (by being consistent with) the interpretation based on the Bible. You will find over and over again that the Bible is confirmed 5 by real science.

  • AlanF

    TopHat quipped:

    : . . . the Bible is confirmed by real science.

    Not hardly. In the long evolution thread, I gave several examples of atavisms, or throwbacks, which are impossible to explain in terms of a Supremely Intelligent Designer. No one has disputed them.


Share this