Just read the God Delusion- JWs get a mention!!

by Kudra 42 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Kudra

  Driving back from Dallas to Tucson I listened to in on my ipod. Unabridged version.

  What surprised me is how sentimental Dawkins is. Once or twice he made me tear up. Very personable.

  So, the JW mention: he goes over the abysmal Creation v. Evolution book. His main point was that the WTS keeps stating that all of these marvelous creations couldn't have come about by "chance", however, natural selection is the very *opposite* of chance.

  He actually spends quite a bit on them, more than I would have thought they merited.

  -K
• 

  BabaYaga

  I did read the book, but by your description, listening to Dawkins delivering his own message may have added to the experience.
• 

  drwtsn32

  however, natural selection is the very *opposite* of chance.

  Yep. It's amazing how many anti-evolutionists don't even understand what they are arguing against.

  I have the book but haven't read it yet. I have almost zero time to read books. But maybe I should look into this book-on-MP3 thing....
• 

  The Scotsman

  Natural Selection??????????

  Chance????????

  Dont matter - evolution has more holes in it than swiss cheese!!!!

  He is right that the Creation book is far from perfect - but neither are his conclusions.

  I had a fair amount of respect for Richard Dawkins until about 6 months ago I seen an interview with him and he said that -

  "Anyone who does not believe Evolution is either stupid, lacking basic intelligence or both".

  What a tremendous lack of humility on his part.

  Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

  The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts.
• 

  wobble

  I agree you canny Scottish person, I also began to suspect Dawkins of not being so sure of his position (intellectual) when he had to resort to that kind of insult.

  It was on the same level as an active Dub who said tome,offering no proof,thet Evolution was "so stupid" I know that a lot of Creationist stuff is stupid,but the argument should be fought on the facts,not with ad hominem attacks.

  I have only had time to speed read some of "God Del." but noticed several problems with his argumentation,I must find time to read it properly,it looked damned interesting.

  love

  Wobble
• 

  MissingLink

  Scottsman - "The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts."

  You're right there. We can either interpret them correctly (evolution) or incorrectly (creationism). There is 0% chance of looking at the facts available and saying that they are in line with the bible. (unles as Dawkins indicates you are a complete moron)

  I think the dubs got a good mention in The God Delusion because Dawkins read their rediculous Creation book and recognized it as a widely distributed and very in line with standard creationist attempts at deception.
• 

  Robert7

  I think one key thing is that you don't have to prove an alternative (i.e. Evolution/Natural Selection) to provide a very strong argument against religion, the Bible, and god.

  Evolution is a theory (although supported with at least some evidence) but I think it's more important to remember the fact that an Athiest doesn't believe in God. He doesn't necessarily believe in evolution.

  I personally think -some- aspects of evolution and natural selection make a lot of sense, but I am open minded enough to accept that it can be totally wrong and the real truth is yet to be found. This does not however provide any further arguments towards god either.
• 

  The Scotsman

  Missing Link

  Why do we interpret facts differently?

  Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

  I am going to hazard a wild guess and say that your presupposition is that you believe in Evolution - no matter what evidence is available, which is fine by me - each to their own and all that.

  My presupposition is that we are all the result of being created - based on what I see all around me - everything is "made", life comes from life. These are observable "facts".

  I don't believe in creation because its the better option. I believe because, as far as "I" am concerned, its the only logical conclusion.

  Imagine 5 pictures were held up - A pencil, a DNA strand, an Atom, a Neuron and a galaxy.

  All of us "including Evolutionists" agree that the pencil was "made" by someone, by a human (or group of humans) with intelligence. The pencil did not come about on its own. But, in the same breath evolutionists want us to believe that DNA, the atom, neurons and entire Galaxies are a product of merely the passing of time with no pre-design, no intelligence.

  Is this a "reasonable conclusion?

  One of Dawkins books is called "The enemies of reason". I am personally convinced that it is these very scientists that are the enemies of "reason"ableness.
• 

  drwtsn32

  "Anyone who does not believe Evolution is either stupid, lacking basic intelligence or both".

  What a tremendous lack of humility on his part.

  Wouldn't you say that about someone who did not believe the Earth was a sphere? Or that gravity exists? It's a fact that evolution happened; the exact nature of the process and how it works is the theory part and will be refined over time.
• 

  garybuss