The Dawkins Delusion (page 6)

sabastious

I have all the evidence I need and more :)

-Sab

BurnTheShips

Brother Dan, Dawkins' other works on evolutionary science are excellent.

However, I do agree with you on his anti-religious polemic The God Delusion. It is not well done. It has a bit of dishonesty, as polemics often do. His philosophical arguments are considered laughable by real philosophers. Other atheists have, in fact, done a far better job than Dawkins in their books. Bertrand Russell, for example.

Regarding Ben Stein, from the other side of the argument. He is every bit as bad as Dawkins. Both are crap polemics that will only sway shallow uninformed people.

BTS

nicolaou

Stephen; the Psalms are beautiful and poetic and provably wrong. If you want to live in beautiful, poetic ignorance be my guest.

cofty

Ding have you read the Dover trial? It was devastating to Behe, he was thoroughly found out.

ID is indeed "creationism in a cheap tux"

IsaacJ22

I'm an atheist and I liked The God Delusion. Since this doesn't seem like a flame war thread, I thought I'd contribute despite the risk to my health. :-)

I think one thing that's important in understanding Dawkins' book is that he's an atheist not unlike myself. He favors principles like logic, critical reasoning skills, skepticism, and all that. The sorts of things that most religious believers (or even just believers in things you might regard as superstitious) tend to regard as evidence do not work as good evidence when you apply these principles. Most religious believers disagree with these principles, which is where the problem in reaching out to the other side enters the picture. You guys have a totally different way of seeing things, one that many atheists have chosen to reject. Our viewpoints are very different and simply not compatible for the most part.

Whenever you try to cross the divide and try to understand atheists, you will encounter this problem. To many of you, Dawkins is being disingenuous or biased. To us, it seems like it's the other way around. In reality, I think we're both trying to cross a gulf that's too wide to be crossed without a major adjustment in how both sides see the world.

To an atheist like myself or Dawkins, the evidence that believers present for their god doesn't stack up very high when we look at it because we don't value that kind of evidence very highly. No judgments there, just pointing out something I've noticed over the years.

On the flipside, believers don't seem to value the principles we value very highly, or our kinds of evidence very highly either. So we're pretty much even there. That doesn't upset me or anything like that, so I hope no one takes what I'm saying personally. But if you want to understand where his book is coming from--and where many atheists are coming from--this is an unavoidable problem for BOTH sides. We don't value the same kinds of information in the same way.

If you ever get into an argument or a debate with an atheist, you may find that your best, most powerful "zingers" in the argument just don't impress us very much. Most religious believers listening to the debate might feel like cheering at those remarks, but most of the atheists will shrug or yawn. Again, when you reverse it, the kind of stuff atheists see as devastating to your arguments bear little weight in your eyes, too. It's a two way street. Try watching some debates over religion or evolution with this in mind, and you might see those debates somewhat differently (though you'll almost surely think that "your guy" won the argument anyway, whether you're an atheist or a theist).

If have to say that Dawkins is not being dishonest or disenguous in my view, though I'm sure he's a bit of a ham by now. To many atheists, he isn't being very biased either. (Everyone's at least a little biased...) To us, it seems like he's being objective and religious believers are the ones who are biased. Just as you think it's us.

I'd like to point out that no one mentioned much about all the scientific information Dawkins offers in his book as evidence for atheism. The big issue for most of you was his take on extreme religions, which was only part of his total case. To me, as an atheist, the extremist stuff was moderately interesting, but it was all the other scientific and logical-philosophical stuff that's more important. That's the good stuff to me, not the things you focussed on. Again, you valued different kinds of information in making your decision about Dawkins', his book, and gods VS atheism, than I did as an atheist.

Not knocking you for this. Just pointing out that you will probably never really get books like this unless you start leaning toward a more atheistic/secular view. You will probably always think that we're biased, just as we tend to think you're the biased ones. What can either side do to bridge the gulf? Be tolerant, that's about all you can do. You can only understand the other sides viewpoint if you try to put yourself in the shoes of that side. (Did that make sense?)

Sorry for the long post.

sabastious

Stephen; the Psalms are beautiful and poetic and provably wrong. If you want to live in beautiful, poetic ignorance be my guest.

/applaud

-Sab

brotherdan

I didn't give any arguments FOR creation because I was dedicating this thread to HOW Dawkins argued. I was not defending "God" per say. I was disappointed by the lack of true analysis.

For example, he could have taken the creationist argument that information systems cannot be demonstrated to come about by themselves. Information cannot come from non-information. That is, to me, a reasonable creationist argument. But he avoids the entire side of creationism. He only gives voice to his own opinions.

Also, if you want a correct definition of what faith is, then why not go to the source of a believers faith...the bible.

Romans 1:20 has a message to believers and non-believers alike. It says, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

All men are without excuse for disbelief in God. According to the bible. Hebrews 11 examines faith closely and says that it is our expectation of things hoped for based on evidence. 11:6 says that without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those that seek him.

So the definition of faith is important because if we DON'T have it, according to the bible, we can't be rewarded by God.

Chalam

I have all the evidence I need and more :)

Not forgetting my guarantee :) :)

2 Corinthians 1:21-22 (New International Version)

21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

Ephesians 1:13-14 (New International Version)

13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.

2 Corinthians 5:4-9 (New International Version)

4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 We live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it.

Blessings,

Stephen