Richard Dawkins; The God Delusion discussion thread

[SFG75]

So, anyone up for reading and discussing the book chapter by chapter? When shall we start?:banana:

[OrphanPip]

I feel that Dawkins' best works are The Ancestor's Tale and The Selfish Gene. I just don't see the point of reading his books dedicated simply to promoting atheism.

[neilgee]

I thought that The God Delusion was a terrific read and very thorough but I'm not up for discussing it chapter by chapter, sorry.

[blazeofglory]

This has shaken our beliefs and in fact it is really hard to apply what he wrote and in fact I have kind of read not the whole text a little bit through comments. For what he wrote is like to disintegrate the values we long cherished in fact. He is a great scientist and not everything and is not authority on the philosophical part of life if he is authority on the biological and anatomical part of life

[Red-Headed]

I just don't see the point of reading his books dedicated simply to promoting atheism.

That's a good point. Is a tendentious atheist any better than a proselytising religious fanatic?


For what he wrote is like to disintegrate the values we long cherished in fact.

It all depends on what you long cherished I guess.

[clairel]

This has shaken our beliefs ..................

As they ought to have been. If a faith can't bear to shaken, what kind of faith is it at all? You should have a bash at Chris Hitchens, that'll really scare you.

I very much enjoyed this book.

[tailor STATELY]

That's a good point. Is a tendentious atheist any better than a proselytising religious fanatic?

LOL. Great word 'tendentious'; a common synonym is 'biased' (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tendentious
having or showing an intentional tendency or bias, esp a controversial one

Now how you go from 'tendentious' to inflammatory words for those of faith, well, ok, it's your thread - I'll respect your lack of objectivity.

In my experience, those of faith who do go about 'proselytising' (sic) try not to be contentious when spreading the gospel.

Here's another great word that goes with bias sometimes:
bigot [ˈbɪgət]
n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race


And yes, sigh, the label of bigotry is sometimes applied to those of faith. Citing one of my Religious Texts from Alma 29:
1 O that I were an angel, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and speak with the trump of God, with a voice to shake the earth, and cry repentance unto every people!
2 Yea, I would declare unto every soul, as with the voice of thunder, repentance and the plan of redemption, that they should repent and come unto our God, that there might not be more sorrow upon all the face of the earth.
3 But behold, I am a man, and do sin in my wish; for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me.

Those who wish to spread their own brand of gospel, be it atheism [scratching head - you are bringing up atheism and its works in a Religious Text thread you know] or otherwise, fine. Let's stop bashing anyone of opposing beliefs.

AND let's do our best not to proselytize, or be 'proselytising' (sic), atheism or faith or 'anything' in between, on this wonderful web site... I think it's in the rules.


Food for thought:
IMHO perhaps a better forum for Dawkins and his works would be in "General Chat" or "Philosophical Literature"; unless you concede that atheism literature merits as Religious Text.

[Morden]

It was stale beer as far as I was concerned and, as usual among atheists whom I have seen express themselves, he was outraged at the wrong strawman. I have no interest in discussing such narrow-minded polemics.

[Babbalanja]

I thought the book was thorough. However, I much prefer his celebration of the naturalist perspective in Unweaving the Rainbow: it's simply the most humble, curious, sincere way of looking at the universe and what we know about it.

The God Delusion is talking about the stated beliefs of religious people, which may very well be beside the point. Daniel Dennett, in Breaking the Spell, recognizes that people profess belief for reasons that have nothing to do with logic and evidence, or even the beliefs themselves. He treats religion as a self-perpetuating construct that uses believers as mere hosts, and which has evolved defenses to ensure its survival even into the 21st century. This makes all the God-is-God-ain't bickering pretty irrelevant.


It was stale beer as far as I was concerned and, as usual among atheists whom I have seen express themselves, he was outraged at the wrong strawman. I have no interest in discussing such narrow-minded polemics.
When all you know of a work is what fundie commentators tell you, you can get the wrong idea.

Regards,

Istvan

[The Atheist]

So, anyone up for reading and discussing the book chapter by chapter? When shall we start?:banana:

Chapter by chapter?

It ain't the bible, you know.


That's a good point. Is a tendentious atheist any better than a proselytising religious fanatic?.

No, but why look at only the extreme ends of the "debate"?


As they ought to have been. If a faith can't bear to shaken, what kind of faith is it at all? You should have a bash at Chris Hitchens, that'll really scare you.

I think they're both hugely inferior to Russell. I do like Hitchens' style, though.


It was stale beer as far as I was concerned and, as usual among atheists whom I have seen express themselves, he was outraged at the wrong strawman. I have no interest in discussing such narrow-minded polemics.

I think this is grossly unreasonable.

Dawkins is most-often attacked for creating a strawman of religion.

Alas, the target is nothing but an infinite procession of strawmen. Even in such a narrow subject as christianity, we have a "god" who ranges from a deranged madman who will admit only 144,000 souls into his heaven to Utilitarianism.

That doesn't even begin to take into account the history of christianity where the story has been embellished, interpreted, re-interpreted and reinvented to try to to equate with the the growth of human knowledge.

Which god do you think Dawkins should have used?

(If you manage to get a consensus on what a True Christian [TM] is, let me know.)

[Morden]

Alas, the target is nothing but an infinite procession of strawmen. Even in such a narrow subject as christianity, we have a "god" who ranges from a deranged madman who will admit only 144,000 souls into his heaven to Utilitarianism.

That doesn't even begin to take into account the history of christianity where the story has been embellished, interpreted, re-interpreted and reinvented to try to to equate with the the growth of human knowledge.

Which god do you think Dawkins should have used?

(If you manage to get a consensus on what a True Christian [TM] is, let me know.)

Even taking your description as correct, you still prove my point. Christians' understanding of their faith is quite varied. I don't see Dawkins as having any serious interest in trying to understand that. The kind of Christianity that he allegedly "demolishes," or at least rails against, is not how I understand my faith. But I'm tired of going through discussions like that. So, you are right about Dawkins, and that's what's wrong about Dawkins, IMO of course.

[Babbalanja]

Dawkins is most-often attacked for creating a strawman of religion.

Alas, the target is nothing but an infinite procession of strawmen. Even in such a narrow subject as christianity, we have a "god" who ranges from a deranged madman who will admit only 144,000 souls into his heaven to Utilitarianism.
And what better way for believers to dismiss any conceivable criticism of their claims? Any god-concept that can be criticised, it follows, isn't a proper one.

That's why the target shouldn't be the god, or even the stated beliefs of the faithful. It should be the concept of faith itself, credulity raised to a virtue. We should expect adults to admit that an approach to knowledge that is based on professing nonsense like John 3:16 isn't imparting any knowledge worth having.

Religion isn't the only problem in the world, but it's a biggie. The I'll-pay-you-back-after-you-die scam has been making people suffer (and making them make others suffer) for far too long. It's about time we were allowed to analyze and criticize religion like we would any other set of claims in society.

Regards,

Istvan

[Morden]

Carry on. Have fun.

[The Atheist]

That's why the target shouldn't be the god, or even the stated beliefs of the faithful. It should be the concept of faith itself, credulity raised to a virtue. We should expect adults to admit that an approach to knowledge that is based on professing nonsense like John 3:16 isn't imparting any knowledge worth having.

That pretty much is what Dawkins does; he just tends to use the odd strawman to emphasise his arguments.

[MarkBastable]

Don't criticise Dawkins, man. Dawkins is God. And his books are the word of....

...Er. Hang on.

Anyway, what I mean is, if I make Dawkins' work the fundamental basis of my way of interpreting the universe, then you have to Respect My Beliefs - and what that means in effect is that you can't discuss them, criticise them, laugh at them, ridicule them or in any way express any contrary view about them, however sincerely or inquisitively, because that would Offend Me, and I, like everyone else, have an inalienable right to be Protected From Being Offended, because that's, like, a really terrible thing to do to someone, and no one should have to suffer the unimaginable discomfort of having their beliefs attacked.

[Morden]

True, all true, Every last ironic word of it.

[Scheherazade]

So, anyone up for reading and discussing the book chapter by chapter? When shall we start?:banana:A member expressed their wish to discuss a book they wanted to read.

If you don't find the book worthy of your time and energy, you should ignore the thread (as the member did not ask your opinions on the book or the author). Otherwise, this thread has been hijacked enough to serve the agendas of few.

This thread is now closed.

SFG75> Please feel free to start another thread to start a group reading/discussion.