after reading the God Delusion

Dave!

Good to hear it PDN! Who knows, maybe you'll defect to atheism after it

I'm sure you're familiar with the arguments anyways

Fanny Cradock

I wqas going to pick this up a while back. I'd be interested on your thoughts, PDN.

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'd be interested on your thoughts, PDN.

Likewise!

Though once you've hung out here for while, you'll have heard it all before I guess.
The arguments against religion don't really change - they just vary in the quality of their verbalisation!

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wqas going to pick this up a while back.

You can probably get it from a library. That way you arent giving money directly to an ideology that clashes with your own.

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

The arguments against religion don't really change - they just vary in the quality of their verbalisation!

Very true

Galvasean wrote:

You can probably get it from a library. That way you arent giving money directly to an ideology that clashes with your own.

That's a good plan.

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

The arguments against religion don't really change - they just vary in the quality of their verbalisation!

What I find far more fascinating is the various ways in which people wriggle away from the arguments. From ye olde "I have faith" to that new favourite "Quantum mechanics means the universe is magical and so God exists".

Dave!

Zillah wrote: »

What I find far more fascinating is the various ways in which people wriggle away from the arguments. From ye olde "I have faith" to that new favourite "Quantum mechanics means the universe is magical and so God exists".

Well theists are usually keen to embrace science

robindch

Dades wrote: »

The arguments against religion don't really change - they just vary in the quality of their verbalisation!

Yes, indeed -- David Hume would right at feel at home here, were he an internet user, and of course, still alive at the age of 297.

I'm sure he'd have loved to have had access to the insights into religion that modern sociologists, psychologists and biologists have provided, which explain with a good degree of economy, the why of religion, and not just the what of religion that he demolished.

Out of interest, has anybody here actually read him?

steve-hosting36

I really enjoyed Dawkins book, it opened my eyes to everything I had long suspected and felt subconsciously, but couldn't put a finger on.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, has anybody here actually read him?

No. What would you recommend to start with?

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

No. What would you recommend to start with?

Not sure really, since I've not read all of his stuff either; was more wondering if somebody here had.

His two biggies are The Natural History of Religion, the start of which reads almost identically to the start of Gibbon's roughly-contemporaneous Chapter XV. Then, there's the longer Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Early in his career, he produced a two-pager called Of Superstition and Enthusiasm. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good entry on Hume's ruminations on religion here which is certainly much easier to read than Hume himself.

The main problem with reading Hume these days is that his prose is arid, his syntax garbled and his use, and misuse, of commas truly unforgivable. That said, he thoroughly demolished religions' pretentions to just about everything and for that alone, he'll be worth reading for a long time to come.

Schuhart

robindch wrote: »

Yes, indeed -- David Hume would right at feel at home here, were he an internet user, and of course, still alive at the age of 297.

I'm sure he'd have loved to have had access to the insights into religion that modern sociologists, psychologists and biologists have provided, which explain with a good degree of economy, the why of religion, and not just the what of religion that he demolished.

Out of interest, has anybody here actually read him?

I’ve read two of his books and agree that he brings a very solid and sensible approach to these questions. We had a thread on one of them a good while back.

I more recently read his ‘Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding’. What I felt was interesting was he seemed to explicitly leave open the question of the impact on human behaviour of unbelief. He (correctly in my view) points out that nothing more can be derived about a ‘prime mover’ from the existence of the present world, other than what is necessary to account for the world. In other words, we might say ‘a prime mover exists with sufficient power to cause this reality’, but there is no way of deriving from the present reality a prime mover who is omnipotent and omnipresent and so forth.

Hence, there is no way of deriving an infinitely good god to give us a concept of morality. Hume (as I recall) accepts this as a philosophical point but adds a statement to the effect that, of course, people who believe that morality has been created by an infinitely good god may behave differently to people who do not.

ironingbored

I remember watching Dawkin's lectures on BBC re evolution. An absolutely enlightening experience at 14/15 years old and put me well on the road to becoming an atheist. The God Delusion is an absorbing book. I loved 'God is not Great' by Hitchens even more. Hitchen's website is a treasure trove of brilliant videos of debates. The most recent being a Hitchens vs. Hitchens classic. No prizes for guessing who wins hands down. http://www.buildupthatwall.com/

Galvasean

ironingbored wrote: »

The most recent being a Hitchens vs. Hitchens classic. No prizes for guessing who wins hands down. http://www.buildupthatwall.com/

... Hitchens?

Dave!

You are correct sir!

Yavvy

The God Delusion has turned me into a full blown Atheist. I began life like most Irish kids brainwashed into the RC way of thinking, so much so that I guess it took Richard Dawkins book to get the message across..."Its ok not to believe in a God". From the age of about 14 till 20ish I was an a la catre Christian (obviously not attending). Then I became some sort of Agnostic with my own Dogma about whats true.... These were all excuses cause deep down I didn’t realise it was ok not to believe.

I loved this book and have since taken to looking at the fantastic online content on his website and youtube.
The man saved me quite a bit of mental distress, the freedom of not believing in God is very ... comfortable.

Would recommend to anyone. Its quite funny too !

Dave!

Hope to see you posting more often here Alany!

aidan24326

steve-hosting36 wrote: »

I really enjoyed Dawkins book, it opened my eyes to everything I had long suspected and felt subconsciously, but couldn't put a finger on.

People like yourself are pretty much the main target audience of the book I believe, and the main reason it was written.

Burial

From Wikipedia:

wrote:

Dawkins writes that The God Delusion contains four "consciousness-raising" messages:

1. Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.
2. Natural selection and similar scientific theories are superior to a "God hypothesis" — the illusion of intelligent design — in explaining the living world and the cosmos.
3. Children should not be labelled by their parents' religion. Terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people flinch.
4. Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind.[1]

I haven't read the book, but from this, he isn't saying every religion is wrong. Just that Atheists shouldn't fear there views and parents shouldn't force a religion down their childrens throats.

Keep in mind I didn't read the book. All I'm saying is, it doesn't sound a though it'd swing me to an atheist. (I'm not any religion. I haven't decided what I am yet)

EDIT:

Intelligent Design is a joke tbh. There is too much proof against it. Also, if God went poof and made things appear with everything, we'd have dodo's again.

Dades

Burial wrote: »

I haven't read the book, but from this, he isn't saying every religion is wrong. Just that Atheists shouldn't fear there views and parents shouldn't force a religion down their childrens throats.

Although the points made in that wiki article are to be found in the book, rest assured a lot of time and effort also goes into explaining why no religion has a logical leg to stand on. Naturally Dawkins can't individually refute every one of thousands of religions (due to space constraints) so he concentrates on the Big Guns, as well as the concept of religion and why it exists.

The clue is in the title! You should read it if you get a chance.

Burial

Dades wrote: »

Although the points made in that wiki article are to be found in the book, rest assured a lot of time and effort also goes into explaining why no religion has a logical leg to stand on. Naturally Dawkins can't individually refute every one of thousands of religions (due to space constraints) so he concentrates on the Big Guns, as well as the concept of religion and why it exists.

The clue is in the title! You should read it if you get a chance.

Well, I'm trying to borrow it from the library, but I'm on the waiting list. One of the books I've wanted to read.

From the Wiki article, it just seems he making the arguement, Creationism = wrong (I agree), evolution = Right (I agree), therefore No God (I don't agree). I just feel he presents the worst sides of religion, and people are agreeing with it, but not getting the other side, or getting a proper semi-unbiased facts. (You can't argue that Dawkins is biased.. Even without reading it, I know he is going to be biased) I never believed any religion to be a full on text-to-life. I believe at the moment anyway, (I'm not sure where I am at the moment, religion-wise), that no religion is right, it's all on basic principles that we should follow. (Don't kill, Don't steal, etc.) I believe religion was set-up to make people orderly, and through the years we've evolved into people who have a basic set of right and wrong, that we inherit from our parents. And then humans started adding more and taking away things as it progressed and started getting caught up in little things rather than the message at hand.

Anyway, logic isn't always perfect, and I must really read this book so I can counter what he has been saying and post a reply back. I must sound like a mad religious freak atm...

I also tend to ramble on this topic and add things that pop into my head... Just so you know when I reply, it might seem scattered, but it'd make sense in my head

Dades

Burial wrote: »

From the Wiki article, it just seems he making the arguement, Creationism = wrong (I agree), evolution = Right (I agree), therefore No God (I don't agree).

There's a lot more to it in the book, really. The whole no-god argument in the book is more about a complete lack of real evidence, together with a scientific explanation for virtually everything that has ever been attributed to god(s).

Burial wrote: »

Anyway, logic isn't always perfect, and I must really read this book so I can counter what he has been saying and post a reply back.

We shall await that reply.

PDN

I found it highly entertaining and an enjoyable read.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I found it highly entertaining and an enjoyable read.

So what views of your have changed since you read it?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

So what views of your have changed since you read it?

My views about God haven't changed. My views about Dawkins have changed. I guess I'd heard him built up so much that I expected him to be better. I think some of the posters on this board actually do a better job than Dawkins of arguing their case.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

My views about God haven't changed.

No doubt, but other than your opinion of the author -- what views of yours related to the topic of the book have changed since you read it?

rainbow kirby

I enjoyed the book - but it didn't really say anything that I didn't already know.