The God Delusion

[Cadrid]

If you're dogmatic, you may want to look at another thread.

Richard Dawkins is a fairly famous author and defender of the theory of evolution. With the relatively recent advent of creationism pushing its way into the field of science, Dawkins has seen fit to use logic, science, and evidence to support the "There is no God" resistance.

I have the book on order, and was wondering if anyone else here has read it. If anyone has, does it read like a novel, a research paper, a hybrid of the two, or something else entirely?

[Tirinal]

It's pop science, but in a good way. He provides a very thorough lay summary of all the evidence against an omnipotent guy drifting about the sky.

It's a book written by an atheist for other atheists. Which is to say it will convince absolutely nobody in the other camp, but it's a fun read.

[Celebrindal]

Richard Dawkins talks about the premise of his book.

I haven't picked it up yet, but I'm pretty interested in it. I heard about him from listening to an interview done last week on Penn's radio show here in NYC. Hopefully I can grab the book later in the day.

Edit: The Virus of Faith 48 minute video

[Celebrindal]

It was a good read. I'm not really great at articulating my feelings about religion and this actually helped me grasp what I really want to say, but didn't have the 'firepower' for.

My main problem is that my girlfriend's mother is a psychotic Christian; Seventh Day Adventist to be exact. I've lied about my 'faith' for the year and a half I've been dating my girl, and I'm getting kinda fed up with it. The woman cannot leave Jesus out of any conversation and she is so demented it really irks me.

I just started reading The End of Faith by Sam Harris by the way. Anyone else done so already?

[fucker]

Originally Posted by Celebrindal

It was a good read. I'm not really great at articulating my feelings about religion and this actually helped me grasp what I really want to say, but didn't have the 'firepower' for.

My main problem is that my girlfriend's mother is a psychotic Christian; Seventh Day Adventist to be exact. I've lied about my 'faith' for the year and a half I've been dating my girl, and I'm getting kinda fed up with it. The woman cannot leave Jesus out of any conversation and she is so demented it really irks me.

I just started reading The End of Faith by Sam Harris by the way. Anyone else done so already?

hehe, i wish i knew a person like that

im sure it's the source of massive ammount of hilarity and jokes

EDIT - you know, i live in Roma, the headquarter of chatolics. and i note a great difference between religious ppl here, and in america

in america, the heavy religious ppl act like exalted psycopaths. they seems histerical in their faith

here its more a depressive way to live religion. i watch the ppl heading to church or listening to Hitl...emh... i mean Ratzinger's speechs and they seem....sad

funny how histery and depression are both psycological disease eh?

[tad10]

Originally Posted by Tirinal

It's pop science, but in a good way. He provides a very thorough lay summary of all the evidence against an omnipotent guy drifting about the sky.

It's a book written by an atheist for other atheists. Which is to say it will convince absolutely nobody in the other camp, but it's a fun read.

I think this is fairly well put. Though I believe that Dawkins has deluded himself into thinking that he can actually prove that faith is non-rational.

But of course it doesn't work that way. Using logic to prove the existence or non-existence of God is just not a winning proposition--it only works if you cheat -- that is if in your system of logic you introduce an axiom (the earlier the better) that God exists/does not exist.

But if you're an atheist and reading this book makes you feel better -- well more power to you. It's no different than a person of faith reading his bible/torah or whathaveyou.

All-in-all you may be better off watch Go God Go/Go God Go Part XII. Intelligent Otters are pretty cool.

[Khorum]

I believe in God! I even think it's plausible that he was a jewish handyman.

[Darph]

I looked at this and A Letter to a Christian Nation.

I think it's important to read books like this and challenge my own beliefs.

I personally see religion as a blueprint for an ideal society, with a focus on the mamily, and, according to Jesus, the most important commandment: "Love thy neighbor". I think the Old Testament was an outline for how to survive and, frankly speaking, not being a retard (thou shalt not kill, etc). I see the New Test as an evolution of this, going beyond your actions and to your attitude in general.

I think that Christianity has been great for society; it’s brought us out of our Tribal Villages and into the modern world, especially all of us from North Europe. It gives me Saturday and Sunday off, the Jewish/Muslim and Christian Sabbaths, and separates my day into 3rds in respect to the Holy Trinity (8 hours work, 8 hours play, 8 hours sleep.) I’m glad I’ve had 3 weeks off so far this holiday season, and I personally think Christmas is a downright magical time of year. I’m very glad I’m in a Christian Nation and not an Atheist one like China, working 14 hours a day 7 days a week. I think that religion has been abused by men seeking power, but I think that’s the case for anything, including Charity Funds and other wholesome things. I think that God wanted religion to be somewhat disorganized, and to not control the government completely. I think Theocracies take away from the whole “Obedience by Choice” thing and God gave us free will for a reason. What’s funny is, the people who TRULY believe this, are some of the most hardcore fundamentalists in the USA, Baptists.


I am a Christian by choice, I think any religious person who looks for more than a few seconds at the universe can easily find plenty of evidence to support a Creationist viewpoint (I.e. planets and moons spinning in opposite directions), however, irrefutable proof won’t be available until He decides to come down here, and from what I’ve read in the Revelations of St. John, I don’t think he’s going to spend a lot of time debating with us when he does. At this point, there isn’t any way to PROVE anything regarding Cosmic Creation (big bang or creation) or Biological Evolution (We cant force species to change into other species), beyond that, if there was a way, you wouldn’t be able to prove it’s not the mechanism in which God chose to create life/the universe/etc. So it’s very important that both groups of people realize that they don’t possess hard, reproducible PROOF that the universe began either way.

In the end, the ultimate evil is ignorance and it’s brother intolerance.

P.s. To those who claim religion harms society, my favorite retort is a tease: Proclaimed atheists shouldnt be allowed to have religious Holidays off of work, this includes Saturday and Sunday.

P.S.S: 7th Day Adventists are a Cult who predicted Christ would come back in 1914~, when 1914 staggered on around, most of the church members left, but the church leaders, instead of admitting they are retards and commiting honorable seppeku, they said he really DID come back..and the apocalypse was starting... a few years later the church split into Jehovas Witnesses (another cult) and 7th days. It's been almost a 100 years... how are these tools still around? /Moan

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by tad10

I think this is fairly well put. Though I believe that Dawkins has deluded himself into thinking that he can actually prove that faith is non-rational.

Dawkins doesn't have to prove faith is irrational because faith is irrational by it's very definition.

Originally Posted by tad10

But of course it doesn't work that way. Using logic to prove the existence or non-existence of God is just not a winning proposition--it only works if you cheat -- that is if in your system of logic you introduce an axiom (the earlier the better) that God exists/does not exist.

Yeah, except Dawkins doesn't try to prove that god doesn't exist he argues that belief in God is irrational, which it is.

[tad10]

Originally Posted by Darph

I think Theocracies take away from the whole “Obedience by Choice” thing and God gave us free will for a reason. What’s funny is, the people who TRULY believe this, are some of the most hardcore fundamentalists in the USA, Baptists.

I agree with this -- the point of free will is that God does not want automatons worshiping Him. Everyone is free to accept or reject God. Trying to impose the choice is directly contrary to God's will. Which is why even though I'm a Catholic I think the Protestant Reformation was a good thing -- brought us out a world of no-choice into the world of religious freedom we have today.

you wouldn’t be able to prove it’s not the mechanism in which God chose to create life/the universe/etc.

Agreed. The problem with say stating that "the fact that animals/humans evolved from simpler creatures is evidence that God does not exist" is that it presupposes, without proving, that God and Evolution are incompatible.

In the end, the ultimate evil is ignorance and it’s brother intolerance.

P.s. To those who claim religion harms society, my favorite retort is a tease: Atheists shouldnt be allowed to have religious Holidays off of work, this includes Saturday and Sunday.

Well religion is also responsible for some of the greatest art, for the continuation of Greek/Roman Arts & Sciences during the dark ages, and is the moral basis for our judicial system ;-) As for religous wars -- I honestly think South Park hit this one on the head...

Bottomline for me -- if you want to be an atheist -- it is certainly your choice -- just accept that it is no more logical/rational or illogical/irrational a choice than being religous.

[tad10]

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

Dawkins doesn't have to prove faith is irrational because faith is irrational by it's very definition.

Yeah, except Dawkins doesn't try to prove that god doesn't exist he argues that belief in God is irrational, which it is.

As I said, if you _define_ that belief in faith is irrational you will come up with the result that it is irrational.

If you define that belief in atheist is rational you will come up with the result that it is rational.

You can not prove -- using any system of logic you would like -- that faith is irrational and atheism rational -- unless you cheat and insert those definitions at the beginning of your proof.

Dawkins proves his points by cheating. Of course persons on the other side making the rational argument for faith do the same thing.

Cheers

[Eomer]

I put this on order last week, should be getting it sometime this week. Looking forward to reading it.

One thing I'll say about Dawkins is that he's an arrogant asshole. Or at least comes across that way. I read a Time article on November 14 (while stuck in the hellhole that is LAX), where Dawkins and another prominent, well established scientist talked about the relationship between science and faith. The other guy (who I can't remember) was not only a scientist, but a devout Christian/Catholic (can't remember what sect). Him and Dawkins went back and forth on the topic, and while I agreed with most of Dawkin's points, I thought he was a complete dick in the way he presented his points and responded to the other guy, who was at least as academically credentialed as him, if not more.

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Darph

I looked at this and A Letter to a Christian Nation.

I think it's important to read books like this and challenge my own beliefs.

But, you aren't challenging your own beliefs. You are looking at anothers point of view and then discarding that in favor of your own entrenched world view without consideration for the others actual argument. Your post below doesn't address anything that Dawkins brought up.

Originally Posted by Darph

I personally see religion as a blueprint for an ideal society, with a focus on the mamily, and, according to Jesus, the most important commandment: "Love thy neighbor". I think the Old Testament was an outline for how to survive and, frankly speaking, not being a retard (thou shalt not kill, etc). I see the New Test as an evolution of this, going beyond your actions and to your attitude in general.

Any society in which rationality is placed behind faith will never be ideal for me.

Originally Posted by Darph

I think that Christianity has been great for society; it’s brought us out of our Tribal Villages and into the modern world, especially all of us from North Europe.

Pagan religions did that but whatever floats your boat. The rest of the paragraph is a maddening web of logical fallacies including, by my cursory glances, ignoring a common cause, false association and false dilemma.

Originally Posted by Darph

I am a Christian by choice, I think any religious person who looks for more than a few seconds at the universe can easily find plenty of evidence to support a Creationist viewpoint (I.e. planets and moons spinning in opposite directions),

Yeah, that totally follows. Please explain how the spin of planets nad moons is evidence for a creator in any logical way. Here's a hint: it isn't possible.

Originally Posted by Darph

however, irrefutable proof won’t be available until He decides to come down here, and from what I’ve read in the Revelations of St. John, I don’t think he’s going to spend a lot of time debating with us when he does. At this point, there isn’t any way to PROVE anything regarding Cosmic Creation (big bang or creation) or Biological Evolution (We cant force species to change into other species), beyond that, if there was a way, you wouldn’t be able to prove it’s not the mechanism in which God chose to create life/the universe/etc. So it’s very important that both groups of people realize that they don’t possess hard, reproducible PROOF that the universe began either way.

You're looking for absolute proof, which I'm afraid doesn't exist. There is no situation that could occur where you could be absolutely sure that that event had taken place. There always exists and ad hoc hypothesis that will negate that event. You're usage of proof is assinine in that it is unattainable. A better way to determine truth is through observation and investigation through rigidly logical controls. There is no testable evidence that the universe was created, and, ultimately, any faith based approach to explanation for the universe is devoid of usefulness. (Speciation, btw, has been observed in lab settings.) There exists, by means of science and reason, a mound of rationally derived, reproducible evidence that offers predicative powers key to human knowledge.

You have essentially stated that no side has proof, while convieniently ignoring that your idea of proof is unattainable and the fact that one sole side posseses empirical evidence to back thier conclusions.

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by tad10

As I said, if you _define_ that belief in faith is irrational you will come up with the result that it is irrational.

If you define that belief in atheist is rational you will come up with the result that it is rational.

You can not prove -- using any system of logic you would like -- that faith is irrational and atheism rational -- unless you cheat and insert those definitions at the beginning of your proof.

Dawkins proves his points by cheating. Of course persons on the other side making the rational argument for faith do the same thing.

Cheers

There is no other way to define faith. It must be irrational. Your argument is akin to this.

Me: I have an apple.
You: You only have an apple because you chose to define it in that way. I say it's an orange.

You're essentially advocating a mutable system of symbology that would make communication impossible. To rephrase: I could say your post is wrong because you chose to define "define" in such a matter that convienient to your needs. In fact I could say this about any word in your post. Dawkins defines faith as irrational because faith by definition is irrational. If you chose to define faith as rational then you are no longer accurately describing faith.

To further clarify: Faith is belief without logical proof or material evidence. Rationality is the employment of reason, which is inference and deduction through logic and empirical evidence. They are mutually exclusive by their very definitions. If you chose to define them differently then you aren't arguing against faith and reason at all, but some other new idea that you have defined and labeled as faith and reason.

Your argument is absurd.

[Bralkan]

Some one reads to much Keirkigard. I happen to agree, though.