'THE DAWKINS DELUSION' New book responds to Dawkins 'The God Delusion'

by nicolaou 79 Replies latest social current

• 

  lovelylil

  scully,

  (edited)

  I have nothing to do at all with my hubby's comments. As a matter of fact he can attest to the fact that we often disagree on many issues of faith. And he expresses himself many times in a way that I never would and I let him know my feelings about it. He had been lurking here for a long time and came to his own conclusions about the athiests on this board.

  And, I find your insinuating that I would even refer to Anyone on this board as a "nasty athiest" to be utterly offensive. I have never in my life referred to anyone in that way, not even when I was a JW. And if you really knew me, you would know how off base your comment was. Lilly
• 

  lovelylil

  Tetra,

  I see by your last comments, unlike some people here, YOU did get my hubby's sense of humor in his post to you.

  For those who did not and think he was just trying to defend me or insult anyone, which he was not, I will explain what happened. When tetra said we are all god's - my hubby laughed his arse off at the computer. He thought that was the funniest thing he ever heard as no one has ever referred to him as a "god" before. That is why he thought it would be funny to tell tetra to bow to him since tetra made him a god. See, tetra got it and responded that a god does not bow to another god. (good comeback btw)

  you will all find my hubby is the more goofy, joking side of the marriage wheras I am more serious. But do not ever think he has to defend his little wifey as he can tell you, when It comes to defending my faith, I am known as a five foot tall pitbull. Also, I have been a Christian most of my life (26 out of 38 years), which is a lot longer than my hubby has been one.

  And tetra, you and I are almost in agreement because I do believe that Man is the Lord over all the earth and everything on it. So I guess I can say we are at least halfway to agreement anyway. Lilly
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Well I will buy this book and so get both sides before commenting further. Already have read The God Delusion. Yes Dawkins can come over too strongly but then so do most religionists
• 

  Gregor

  God is the ultimate "the checks in the mail" concept. Go ahead and write your own checks against the anticipated deposit, after all, you can't cash a "God" check until after your dead! What a perfect scheme! Makes you feel good now and you'll never be disappointed.

  Sheep, indeed.
• 

  press any key

  MM

  what job done

  the cynic in me says that Dawkins job is to sell books and being out there and upsetting people seems to be working for him in that regard

  as to converting people to athiesm, I dont know if that is his desire or just to start debate and get people to think about it,

  imho, individuals who believe in god aren't likely to change their mind because of Dawkins but young people who are still making up their minds may be swayed, it will take generations to reduce religions power by any meaningful degree

  note: havent read the book as I got over my personal god delusion a while ago, have read some of his other books though

  cheers

  pak
• 

  Madame Quixote

  stvenyc said: ". . . Science uses testable scenarios to determine the worth of an argument, while religion uses the ancient teachings of mystics as preconditioned fact. . . you can't bring them both to the same table and expect an answer." steve

  I believe, from my reading of The God Delusion, that this is simply the point Dawkins does make, and he makes it quite well. He also does it with a sense of humor and even concedes that there is ever the slightest probability that he is mistaken.

  Dawkins understands that you cannot mix religion into science (and that is what so-called intelligent design does); and he shows quite clearly that so-called intelligent design does not provide any body of evidence that is stronger, more convincing, nor as beautiful and simple as evolution by natural selection.

  He shows that if you say you "believe in evolution," it's not too smart to believe that god caused it, because evolution is a bottom-up process and if anything more intelligent than us (Little Green Men or God) caused evolution then He (or the little green men) would need to also be a product of (bottom-up!) evolution and the probability of that happening is so infintessimal that atheism is the most logical conclusion.

  Yes, I suppose it really hurts to hear that one of mankind's most fondly treasured adult bedtime stories is most unlikely, but the facts is the facts, and evolution is a fact and god ain't, like it or not, says Dawkins. Too bad it pisses people off that evolution is a fact and that believing in god ain't logical. People have believed a lot of illogical things for milennia; it does not mean they have to hold onto illogic the way 3-year-olds hold onto security blankets.

  After all, there is so much fantastic, amazing, stunning, beautiful work going on in the fields of science, especially in evolutionary biology and genetics, that fretting over whether or not god exists and whether or not evolutionary theories should take him into account is just plain silly. There are so many more important and wonderful things to study and consider.
• 

  Madame Quixote

  I'm not saying it's silly to keep religion out of science. That's the whole reason for Dawkins' ire, I'd say.

  Putting religion into science (with silly, half-baked ideas like intelligent design) deserves such ire, and as mavie says, public policy should not be determined by a belief in god.

  Science belongs in Science books and religious philosophy belongs in Philosophy books.

  That's why that judge ruled against the Kansas City School Board on their decision to teach ID in the science class; he could see it went against separation of church and state and that ID is not a scientific idea, and is not backed by a large body of empirical evidence the way that Neo-Darwinism is.

  Religion can not and should not be a part of science; such a lack of objectivity in the field of scientific research is absolutely unacceptable and maddening to those (like Dawkins and his colleagues) who have devoted a life time in study of the natural world and the natural forces of the universe. The whole point of science is to endeavor to promote and discover these natural causes and effects and to not rely on supernatural, preconceived notions of anything, which is what intelligent design would have us do, at the expense of American Science and its credibility. And that would not be in the public interest to do!
• 

  Nathan Natas

  Mavie asked,

  Sorry NN? Are you saying I'm full of myself? LOL!

  Yikes! NO! I was commenting on the brilliance of titling the book "The Dawkins Delusion." not brilliant at all - rather lame actually.)
• 

  jwfacts

  Dawkins book is more accurately titled The Religion Delusion, as he spends more time attacking religion than disproving God in it. I think the title is a brilliant piece of marketing. He knows what he is doing, is very sucessfull and has managed to fuel significant controversy, which I am sure is what he wants. Whether or not people become athiests, if he can convince people to move away from blind fundamentalism he must be congratulated for a job well done.
• 

  TopHat

  Now, ROC, I understand that Lilly called your attention to all the nasty non-believing atheists here and you feel compelled to help her out, but I will remind you that if you aren't going to participate in the discussion in a meaningful way, we'll need to deal with you in an unpleasant manner.

  Dear Dear, Scully must be one of "THE ANOINTED" making threats to the lowly posters! Hold your temper Lady!