Page 1 of 4 [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Question14
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 164

09 Jan 2013, 7:07 pm

So, recently read Richard Dawkins Selfish gene and Delusional God. Very good books, and i agree on most of his points.
i was already thinking on his terms before i learnt about, but reading these books are entertaining aswell as intriguing.

But concerning the specfic book 'Delusional God' what do you think?
me? I agree with specficly with his point of too much undeserved respect to religion. And not to mention his points on the American Goverment plus Religion.

Yeah, i am a Atheist



yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

09 Jan 2013, 7:18 pm

lol @ Delusional God.

I think you are referring to The God Delusion? ;)



minervx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,155
Location: United States

09 Jan 2013, 7:58 pm

I've read Dawkin's writings. They certainly won't make devout christians question god and they won't tell atheists what they don't already know, but for some agnostics in the middle, they might give you a little push over the fence.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Jan 2013, 8:33 pm

minervx wrote:
I've read Dawkin's writings. They certainly won't make devout christians question god and they won't tell atheists what they don't already know, but for some agnostics in the middle, they might give you a little push over the fence.


Dawkins is not out to unchristianize Christians. He is making a case that religion and religious beliefs should not have a privileged position in discourse, particularly discourse on public policy.

ruveyn



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

09 Jan 2013, 9:32 pm

I think Dawkins is out of his depth when it comes to questions like whether God exists and what God's properties are. He hasn't had training in philosophy, and it shows. In fact, his "central argument" in the book doesn't make sense at all! Here is Dawkins' summary of his so-called central argument:

Richard Dawkins wrote:
1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
5. We don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.
6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.


Um... what?



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

09 Jan 2013, 9:46 pm

I don't like Dawkins at all, even if I do happen to agree with a lot of the things he says.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,110
Location: temperate zone

09 Jan 2013, 10:48 pm

yellowtamarin wrote:
lol @ Delusional God.

I think you are referring to The God Delusion? ;)


If God existed AND he himself were 'delusional' that would be pretty bad!

Lol!

Who knows?

He might even have delusions that he is God!



Question14
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 164

10 Jan 2013, 2:35 am

:oops: i mage a slight mistake with the name of the book.

@Declension

although he words it in a very complex way, he is saying (along with other stuff) that who designed the designer?

But way to show religon as false in christanity at least, is to look at the hypocritical bible. it is very inaccrute history wise and those gospels never ment jesus! the writings are conflicting, and do not match up with a true record of history.

and besides, if the God form the old testement exists, we're all going to hell unless you are a extream fundmentlist.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,549
Location: Reading, England

10 Jan 2013, 1:04 pm

Declension wrote:
I think Dawkins is out of his depth when it comes to questions like whether God exists and what God's properties are. He hasn't had training in philosophy, and it shows. In fact, his "central argument" in the book doesn't make sense at all! Here is Dawkins' summary of his so-called central argument:

Richard Dawkins wrote:
1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
5. We don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.
6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.


Um... what?

He should have cut that down to "who designed the designer?"

I would have expected a scientist like Dawkins to say that "God did it" isn't a testable statement, makes no predictions, and so forth. We can't explain the Standard Model, that doesn't mean it isn't a good explanation for how the world works.

Paley was unable to tell anything about the designer of his watch, but could tell it had been designed. This is true for all occasions when a complex object is thought to be designed- we know nothing about the designer.

It's a weak argument and not one that should be used- but then the design argument itself is very weak because we know of alternative means for complexity to arise.



Surfman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2010
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,938
Location: Homeward bound

10 Jan 2013, 1:29 pm

I'm fully into Dawks
even bought the book [which is rare for me!]

Could not finish T.G.D due to his boring manner of writing
He comes across as quite conceited due to his overly and out of balance empirical stance on matters scientific



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

10 Jan 2013, 1:32 pm

Surfman wrote:
I'm fully into Dawks
even bought the book [which is rare for me!]

Could not finish T.G.D due to his boring manner of writing
He comes across as quite conceited due to his overly and out of balance empirical stance on matters scientific


I don't agree entirely with your post, but he does appear to be conceited.

I read The God Delusion from the beginning to the end, and it bothered me that he basically put down almost every single person he mentioned in the book, including his fellow atheists and scientists.

Couldn't he just express disagreement without being so condescending towards people who very likely contributed more to science than he's personally ever done.



Surfman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2010
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,938
Location: Homeward bound

10 Jan 2013, 1:51 pm

Dawks being a poster boy implies more than first appearance's
By being boring and conceited
he still feeds new souls into the church machine

Essentially he's a sort of double agent, a false flag

maybe if he was charismatic, people would worship him?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,110
Location: temperate zone

10 Jan 2013, 2:35 pm

Surfman wrote:
Dawks being a poster boy implies more than first appearance's
By being boring and conceited
he still feeds new souls into the church machine

Essentially he's a sort of double agent, a false flag

maybe if he was charismatic, people would worship him?


You kinda lost me here.

Are you saying that he is a secret mole for christianity-because he drives folks TO christianity through reverse charisma?

Or are you saying that he is inspiration to all repellent dweebs because he manages to get a following despite his total lack of charm and charisma (but just think what a following he would have if he DID have charisma and charm)?



Surfman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2010
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,938
Location: Homeward bound

10 Jan 2013, 2:54 pm

I dont know
popular culture is so manufactured nowadays
maybe I'm too cynical



TheValk
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 641

10 Jan 2013, 3:57 pm

With all due respect to Dawkins, I think he should drop talking about religion and just stick to bacteria and whatever else he's supposed to be occupied with.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

10 Jan 2013, 3:59 pm

I like him. He does seem to be a bit up his own ring, though.