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

by nicolaou 79 Replies latest social current

  • ROC


    Hi this is ROC. THis issue which I think is a none issue has to end. Don't worry I will not post on your board or lurk let my wife says anymore. There are better things in life for me to do that worry about discussion on this board. I have a wonderful family and I can use my time more wisely with them.

    Thanks for the time on the board. Good bye and have Peace.

    God Bless

  • LittleToe

    Nic:Militancy bordering on proselytising.

    I had enough of it as a JW, don't like seeing it in Fundamentalist religion (be it Christian or otherwise), nor do I tolerate it well in other philosophies including the scientific and atheist. But you know this. We've been there

  • nicolaou

    Yeah, I think we have each others number on this. All I'd say is that sometimes an enthusiastically, vigorous stand can be mistaken for militant fervour - on both sides. I know I've made the mistake myself of taking umbridge at a religious post I felt was aggressive and 'preachy' and sometimes a non-believer like me can come across as an atheist proselytiser but I'm not really, I'm just passionate.

    I think Dawkins is often misunderstood. I can honestly say I do not see arrogance in the man or his writings. If I'm wrong i'm sure someone will let me know..

  • Abaddon

    Ya know if someone jumped up and critiqued religions the way Dawkins does, but did so from the viewpoint of enlightened pantheism as distinct from atheism, got a following, set up a religious group, churches, etc., sort of New Age Unitarian...

    ... people wouldn't be that bothered. Oh, another religion, great. Yeah, they slag off other religions, but they sincerely believe in their 'god', so they can.

    Dawkins critiques religion and religious belief.

    He does so without pandering to the opinion of such groups that their opinions are somehow worthy of greater respect because 'god' is wrapped up in it, according to them.

    Why on Earth should he talk with respect and reverence of the beliefs of followers of Thor, or Mohamed or Jesus or Joseph Smith or Ron Hubbard?

    Because they think so?!!

    It is a silly idea, it would be like talking to a rapist as if his opinion woman say no when they mean yes meant anything. You might not like that example, but YOU would find such a person delusional as he could not justify his beliefs to you, and because you cannot justify your beliefs to him, Dawkins thinks YOU are delusional too. I stress, you don't have to like it.

    Of course Dawkins can look at it from the point of view of those who take umbrage. He's perfectly aware they expect 'special treatment' for their personal opinions about god, probably because they make such a racket when they don't get them people pander to them most of the time as it is easier.

    But he keeps his own standards, not theirs. He isn't going to condescend and pretend he believes in stuff that is (to him) patent nonsense, treat them like silly little religious people who are stoopid or something, and will think he believes in god or is a nice chap anyway as long as he dresses it up all purty and puts a bow in its hair. He just says it how he thinks it is. Refreshing honesty... maybe that is what is so startling.

    Shock!! Horror!! Nasty man doesn't believe in MY personal version of the ultimate invisible friend,,, OR anybody's!!!!!!

    And then he has the nerve to say there isn't any evidence, and that all the claimed personal internal experiences are perfectly explicable with our knowledge of how our body's work... and that as none of the proceeding is rocket science, anyone who doesn't act in line with the facts is delusional.

    How very dare he!!!

    What next? Going back to "S'truth" and "Zounds" to avoid offending a random passing fundy? Complaining about some Danish cartoons of the great Pophet Mo', as some one had their feelings hurt??


    Now, watch the reverse game; provided someone doesn't sink to base ad hom, lying or otherwise misrepresenting an atheist's beliefs, the atheist is probably not going to give a flying act of coitus if you think he is silly, stupid, delusional, whatever, on account of his or her beliefs.

    Time to skin up, this is soooooooo fricking funny...

  • LittleToe
    ...the atheist is probably not going to give a flying act of coitus if you think he is silly, stupid, delusional, whatever, on account of his or her beliefs.

    WTF - how do you do that without a swing?

  • TopHat

    I can honestly say I do not see arrogance in the man or his writings. If I'm wrong i'm sure someone will let me know..

    We all see what we want to see Nico.

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan
    I agree entirely with Ian's post. I just find it a shame that Dawkins finds it necessary to use the same methods as those he detracts


  • slimboyfat

    Alister McGrath already wrote a very poor book on Dawkins called Dawkins' God. I guess he is having another go. All he has to offer is high sounding language, and the rather obvious point (which Dawkins concedes) that you cannot prove that God does not exist. A rather empty point really, but one that McGrath seems hell bent on repeating ad nauseum.

    I don't find Dawkins arrogant at all. Exasperated would be a more appropriate word. Like someone transported from the 21st century running about early modern Europe trying to stop them burning witches.


  • gumb


    : 1. a thing that is known to have occurred, to exist, or to be true. 2 a datum of experience (often foll. by an explanatory clause or phrase: the fact that fire burns; the fact of my having seen them). 3 (usu. in pl.) an item of verified information; a piece of evidence. 4 truth, reality. 5 a thing assumed as the basis for argument or inference. (The Oxford English Reference Dictionary).


    : "1 of logic or formal argument. 2 not contravening the laws of thought, correctly reasoned. 3 deducible or defensible on the ground of consistency; reasonably to be believed or done. 4 capable of correct reasoning." (The Oxford English Reference Dictionary).


    : "1 based on or acting on observation or experiment, not on theory. 2. Philos. regarding sense-data as valid information. 3 deriving knowledge from experience alone." (The Oxford English Reference Dictionary).


    : 1 the available facts [see above], circumstances, etc. supporting or otherwise a belief, proposition, etc., or indicating whether or not a thing is true or valid.2Lawa information given personally or drawn from a document etc. and tending to prove a fact or porposition. b statements or proofs admissible as testimony in a lawcourt. 3 clearness, obviousness. (The Oxford English Reference Dictionary).

    Madame Quixote, I would be grateful if you would answer the following questions for me:

    1. In what sense do you think evolution a 'fact'?

    2. In what sense do you think is it not 'logical' to believe in God?

    3. In what sense is there 'empirical' 'evidence' for evolution?

    Thank you.

    BTW: I greatly enjoyed reading 'The God Delusion'; Dawkins made a lot of valid points about religion, and I look forward to hearing what a religious person has to say about those points in 'The Dawkins Delusion'. And would someone who believes in the Bible please give a proper answer to the question raised about Adam and salvation, and the reason for Jesus being 'the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world' (ie where did this sin come from then?)!

  • TopHat
    ...the atheist is probably not going to give a flying act of coitus if you think he is silly, stupid, delusional, whatever, on account of his or her beliefs.

    WTF - how do you do that without a swing?

    I don't know. A detached dick with wings?

Share this