I'm just finished reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and it's one hell of a book:) Loved it.. so Interesting, educational and funny.
I just can't see how any religious person can deny the facts in this book. He explains it so well.
Anyone else read the book?? any religious folks here who have any thoughts about it??
Discuss anthing related to the book i guess

This Thread belongs in the Recreational forum i guess.. see if you can move it there before any of the mods remove it.

I think since it is about books, it should have been in Recreation forums. But anyway about the book, as a person who admire professor Dawkins a lot, I praise the God Delusion. I read the book as a Muslim, after finishing the book I became an atheist/agnostic/whatever... The book itself didn't make the change. The change came because the book offered me to think about God without any fear and prejudice...
This book is amazing, because the least thing it does, is motivate people to think rationally. This is important. Whether after reading the book you're a theist or atheist, you can think freely.. It offers you freedom of individuals. Of course what I say is not correct about blind religious people who dogma has raped their brains. If you are a bit reasonable and rational, it's enough. In that case it will change your mind about the whole planet!

Written by Hamird on 07.08.2010 at 18:42

I think since it is about books, it should have been in Recreation forums. But anyway about the book, as a person who admire professor Dawkins a lot, I praise the God Delusion. I read the book as a Muslim, after finishing the book I became an atheist/agnostic/whatever... The book itself didn't make the change. The change came because the book offered me to think about God without any fear and prejudice...
This book is amazing, because the least thing it does, is motivate people to think rationally. This is important. Whether after reading the book you're a theist or atheist, you can think freely.. It offers you freedom of individuals. Of course what I say is not correct about blind religious people who dogma has raped their brains. If you are a bit reasonable and rational, it's enough. In that case it will change your mind about the whole planet!

agreed ! .. but note, there's a HUGE difference between "atheism" and "agnosticism" and "whatever"

Written by Zombie on 07.08.2010 at 18:46

Written by Hamird on 07.08.2010 at 18:42

I think since it is about books, it should have been in Recreation forums. But anyway about the book, as a person who admire professor Dawkins a lot, I praise the God Delusion. I read the book as a Muslim, after finishing the book I became an atheist/agnostic/whatever... The book itself didn't make the change. The change came because the book offered me to think about God without any fear and prejudice...
This book is amazing, because the least thing it does, is motivate people to think rationally. This is important. Whether after reading the book you're a theist or atheist, you can think freely.. It offers you freedom of individuals. Of course what I say is not correct about blind religious people who dogma has raped their brains. If you are a bit reasonable and rational, it's enough. In that case it will change your mind about the whole planet!

agreed ! .. but note, there's a HUGE difference between "atheism" and "agnosticism" and "whatever"

I think know the difference!!!
I said so, because I didn't want to talk about my religious views, since the point was the book, not me!

Written by Zombie on 07.08.2010 at 18:34

This Thread belongs in the Recreational forum i guess.. see if you can move it there before any of the mods remove it.

Sorry but one of the stafs actually put it here.. i first put it in the wrong place. but i guess your right

Written by Hamird on 07.08.2010 at 18:42

I think since it is about books, it should have been in Recreation forums. But anyway about the book, as a person who admire professor Dawkins a lot, I praise the God Delusion. I read the book as a Muslim, after finishing the book I became an atheist/agnostic/whatever... The book itself didn't make the change. The change came because the book offered me to think about God without any fear and prejudice...
This book is amazing, because the least thing it does, is motivate people to think rationally. This is important. Whether after reading the book you're a theist or atheist, you can think freely.. It offers you freedom of individuals. Of course what I say is not correct about blind religious people who dogma has raped their brains. If you are a bit reasonable and rational, it's enough. In that case it will change your mind about the whole planet!

You being a muslim before you read it, What was your expectations before you read the book? You are totaly right about the Brainraped religious people, i've seen plenty of videos on youtube with religious people saying they are not convinced in any way by the book. I can't imagen they even have read the whole thing.

I haven't read it, never actually bothered or had any strong interest to, but it occasionally springs up from my mind.

Does anyone have a download link for a PDF version? this book isn't sold in Egypt

It's a great book! Very humorous indeed. Although there aren't as many indisputable facts as in The Greatest Show On Earth.

Dawkins is slightly pompous and TGSOE proves it in spades with its lecture-like presentation, but it's an extremely informative book worth anyone's time, regardless of religious background.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 08.08.2010 at 04:49

It's a great book! Very humorous indeed. Although there aren't as many indisputable facts as in The Greatest Show On Earth.

Dawkins is slightly pompous and TGSOE proves it in spades with its lecture-like presentation, but it's an extremely informative book worth anyone's time, regardless of religious background.

It's a complitly different book though.. it explains evolution.

I wouldn't say completely different. Both books have their fair share of deity-denouncing.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 09.08.2010 at 02:13

I wouldn't say completely different. Both books have their fair share of deity-denouncing.

Thats true:)

Written by Troy Killjoy on 08.08.2010 at 04:49

It's a great book! Very humorous indeed. Although there aren't as many indisputable facts as in The Greatest Show On Earth.

Dawkins is slightly pompous and TGSOE proves it in spades with its lecture-like presentation, but it's an extremely informative book worth anyone's time, regardless of religious background.

I was about to read this book a while ago, but then I thought it would just be boring brag about "God isn't here". So is it actually interesting to read? Also, I've heard the reasoning is bad in the book. Does it have good/interesting theories?

Written by Fane on 10.08.2010 at 04:22

I was about to read this book a while ago, but then I thought it would just be boring brag about "God isn't here". So is it actually interesting to read? Also, I've heard the reasoning is bad in the book. Does it have good/interesting theories?

The book is incredibly informative but it lacks cohesion - as I said before, it is presented more or less as a lecture, so there isn't any "fun" in reading it, and in my opinion the reasoning is sound as anyone else's.

It does constantly boast that god doesn't exist, but at the same time provides plenty of fascinating facts about why god doesn't exist. There's a major focus on evolutionism, so if you aren't into that I wouldn't recommend the book.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 10.08.2010 at 04:40

Written by Fane on 10.08.2010 at 04:22

I was about to read this book a while ago, but then I thought it would just be boring brag about "God isn't here". So is it actually interesting to read? Also, I've heard the reasoning is bad in the book. Does it have good/interesting theories?

The book is incredibly informative but it lacks cohesion - as I said before, it is presented more or less as a lecture, so there isn't any "fun" in reading it, and in my opinion the reasoning is sound as anyone else's.

It does constantly boast that god doesn't exist, but at the same time provides plenty of fascinating facts about why god doesn't exist. There's a major focus on evolutionism, so if you aren't into that I wouldn't recommend the book.

Two-faced book, haha. Guess I'll have to try read small parts from it and then decide if it's enough interesting to be picked up.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 08.08.2010 at 04:49

Dawkins is slightly pompous...

Ha, that's like saying the pope is slightly Catholic.

Dawkins raises a lot of interesting points and food for thought, but he comes across as a completely arrogant SOB. Admire his thoughts, can't stand his presentation.

I don't think he is that arogant, he is just sure that he know whats right.... and he does, no doubt about that.

My bro said it well... Dawkins' style's "Whitebread is white! SEE! It's a fact! God does not exist! It's a fact!"

In my humble opinion, no one can prove that something does NOT exit ... you can prove that something does exist, you can prove that evolution, you can prove that all those things we credited god for are actually not true and made by some other forces (coincidence maybe) but still that does not mean that god does not exist ... you cannot say that aliens for example do not exist just coz you've never seen one and coz they haven't left a trace... so, 'maybe" this book could prove that god isn't responsible for what we think he's responsible for.. but practically you can NEVER disprove his existence.. you can 'believe' he doesnt exist, fine by me.. but no one in the world could PROVE he doesnt exist ... coz maybe he does exist, but he's keeping a low profile, and not interfering with life .. waiting for the end and then he's all like: HA ! you see, i DID exist all along but u never believed in me.. off to hell you go !

anyways i'm going to read the book when i have free time.. i'm expectign some interesting views, and enlightening bout some stuff we took for granted as a given and never gave a thought about it before or questioned it.. but i KNOW for a fact no one can ever prove that something doesnt exist...

Written by Zombie on 15.08.2010 at 05:56

In my humble opinion, no one can prove that something does NOT exit ... you can prove that something does exist, you can prove that evolution, you can prove that all those things we credited god for are actually not true and made by some other forces (coincidence maybe) but still that does not mean that god does not exist ... you cannot say that aliens for example do not exist just coz you've never seen one and coz they haven't left a trace... so, 'maybe" this book could prove that god isn't responsible for what we think he's responsible for.. but practically you can NEVER disprove his existence.. you can 'believe' he doesnt exist, fine by me.. but no one in the world could PROVE he doesnt exist ... coz maybe he does exist, but he's keeping a low profile, and not interfering with life .. waiting for the end and then he's all like: HA ! you see, i DID exist all along but u never believed in me.. off to hell you go !

anyways i'm going to read the book when i have free time.. i'm expectign some interesting views, and enlightening bout some stuff we took for granted as a given and never gave a thought about it before or questioned it.. but i KNOW for a fact no one can ever prove that something doesnt exist...

There is always that 0000000000000,1% that he do exist, but as proffesor Dawkins says in his book. "We can't prove that Santa clause ore The flying Spaghetti Monster ain't true either, but we don't belive in them when we become adult and Reasonable people" And there is so much evidence against the existence of god, that in any other case with a different subject that amount of evidence would be more than enough to prove something. But i guess since it's a faith issue i wouldn't understand.. ha ha.

Written by RockeRoy on 15.08.2010 at 13:12

There is always that 0000000000000,1% that he do exist

No. You can't measure the likelyhood of God. Your sentence is pure nonsense. This is also why the ID argument fails so miserably.

Quote:

"We can't prove that Santa clause ore The flying Spaghetti Monster ain't true either, but we don't belive in them when we become adult and Reasonable people"

The difference here is, that Santa and TFSM are ARBITRARY constructs, while God as a posit to explain the existence of the cosmos is an INTELLECTUAL construct. Comparing God to Santa Claus is like comparing black holes to spiderman. Dawkins doesn't seem to understand (or want to understand) the difference, be better than him. It's really easy, I'll show you the way.

Quote:

And there is so much evidence against the existence of god, that in any other case with a different subject that amount of evidence would be more than enough to prove something.

There is NO evidence against the existence of God. The scientific method can't be applied here. You will never find scientific evidence for or against the existence of God. Talking about evidence for god is like talking about faith for gravity. Nonsense.

Now for my thoughts on the book. Warning: my memory is a bit hazy at this point and I don't have the book here.

People should only write books on subjects they are experts on. Dawkins writing a book on molecular biology would be great, Dawkins writing a book on philosophy, not so great. In fact, the book is rather miserable when arguing against God.

Now before I get deeper into it, let me first compliment Dawkins for two things: nailing his list of grievances on religion's door and calling upon atheists to come out of the confession booth and admit to atheism in areas where being an atheist is viewed with hatred. Well done there, Richard.

One more thing before I explain why the book isn't good. Dawkins' arguments against intelligent design are good, so that is also a plus.

On to the problems and the problems are really just one big problem: Dawkins is not a philosopher and he isn't really selling atheism, but materialism. One of his arguments against God is that a being responsible for the universe would have to be even more complex than the universe and would him/her/itself have to be the result of a very long evolutionary process. Well, no. God by definition and by the very definition that Dawkins himself sometimes uses is not material. We judge how complex a thing is by the number of parts the thing has and by how intricately those parts connect to one another. God, if he/she/it exists, has no parts and is not complex in the slightest. As I said, Dawkins seems to be selling materialism, perhaps without even being aware of it.

Dawkins argues against Thomas Aquinas' five arguments for God's existence by claiming that the first three arguments grant God with unwarranted "immunity to regress". Rubbish. If we are to construct an intellectual posit to terminate infinite regress, then that posit is not immune to regress, regress simply can't be a characteristic of the posit. If the posit is capable of regress, why posit it in the first place?

Get this into your heads: asking who created the creator is as self-evidently idiotic and contradictory, as asking where is space located and what was the time, when time began. Even Michael Shermer doesn't seem to understand this, which is sad, cause I like the man as an intellectual and as an entertainer. But I digress.

There was also the argument from degree. Aquinas argues that there must be something that is the best possible thing: most noble, most good, most true, most just, because there are many degrees of goodness, nobility, loyalty etc. But for this to be anything but arbitrary, there must exist a "best being".
Dawkins responds to this by saying that one might as well say God is the biggest stinker. Well, no. Dawkins doesn't seem to know the difference between PERcept and CONcept. He puts smell in the same category as goodness. And this man was chosen as the most intelligent person in britain? Wow.

Dawkins makes the mistake over and over again, of not knowing what he is talking about and more importantly: not knowing what he is arguing against. I know he has said on several occasions that asking theologians about God is like asking faryiologists about fairies, but then why does he bother to argue against something he finds oh so trivial? If I thought the question of the existance of fairies was important enough to write a book on, I'd find out what I was arguing against.

Dawkins doesn't bother. Which must mean he doesn't really care. But hey, it gets him voted to lists and makes him money and fame anyway, so why should he put actual effort into it, right?

This book is an embarrasment to atheists. Well, to the ones who like to think anyway.

Over and out.

Written by Guest on 18.08.2010 at 05:04

Written by RockeRoy on 15.08.2010 at 13:12

There is always that 0000000000000,1% that he do exist

No. You can't measure the likelyhood of God. Your sentence is pure nonsense. This is also why the ID argument fails so miserably.

Quote:

"We can't prove that Santa clause ore The flying Spaghetti Monster ain't true either, but we don't belive in them when we become adult and Reasonable people"

The difference here is, that Santa and TFSM are ARBITRARY constructs, while God as a posit to explain the existence of the cosmos is an INTELLECTUAL construct. Comparing God to Santa Claus is like comparing black holes to spiderman. Dawkins doesn't seem to understand (or want to understand) the difference, be better than him. It's really easy, I'll show you the way.

Quote:

And there is so much evidence against the existence of god, that in any other case with a different subject that amount of evidence would be more than enough to prove something.

There is NO evidence against the existence of God. The scientific method can't be applied here. You will never find scientific evidence for or against the existence of God. Talking about evidence for god is like talking about faith for gravity. Nonsense.

well, I don't know if you just don't know about the HUGE amount of evidence there is against god, or if you are one of those who refuse to think about them and flat out denies everything you don't like to hear. If you belive that god is the creator, gravity would also be his idea, right??? actually i can't see how anything could not be a faith issue for belivers, after all god is suposed to be all knowing and most sertanly is the creator of gravity. if you don't agree, who did create gravity? i can tell you who didn't... an intelligent designer!
Faith is a stupid thing, would you belive blindly in anything else without evidence?

Written by Guest on 18.08.2010 at 05:04

Written by RockeRoy on 15.08.2010 at 13:12

There is always that 0000000000000,1% that he do exist

No. You can't measure the likelyhood of God. Your sentence is pure nonsense. This is also why the ID argument fails so miserably.

Quote:

"We can't prove that Santa clause ore The flying Spaghetti Monster ain't true either, but we don't belive in them when we become adult and Reasonable people"

The difference here is, that Santa and TFSM are ARBITRARY constructs, while God as a posit to explain the existence of the cosmos is an INTELLECTUAL construct. Comparing God to Santa Claus is like comparing black holes to spiderman. Dawkins doesn't seem to understand (or want to understand) the difference, be better than him. It's really easy, I'll show you the way.

Quote:

And there is so much evidence against the existence of god, that in any other case with a different subject that amount of evidence would be more than enough to prove something.

There is NO evidence against the existence of God. The scientific method can't be applied here. You will never find scientific evidence for or against the existence of God. Talking about evidence for god is like talking about faith for gravity. Nonsense.

Sorry i didn't see everything else you wrote before i said the last thing, so i get confused, are you just not a big fan of The god delusion or are you not a big fan of The god delusion and belive in god? If i'm going to answer the long one you wrote i would like to know.
And i would just like to say that if dawkins doesn't live up to your standards, all the evidence is still there. Dawkins didn't find all the evidences he just tries to explain them.

Written by RockeRoy on 18.08.2010 at 18:23

well, I don't know if you just don't know about the HUGE amount of evidence there is against god, or if you are one of those who refuse to think about them and flat out denies everything you don't like to hear.

There are plenty of arguments for and against the existence of God and most of them suck. However, when I speak of evidence I mean empirical evidence, scientific evidence. And there can't be any, because science can't study the non-material. A material God would not be a god at all.

Quote:

If you belive that god is the creator, gravity would also be his idea, right??? actually i can't see how anything could not be a faith issue for belivers, after all god is suposed to be all knowing and most sertanly is the creator of gravity. if you don't agree, who did create gravity? i can tell you who didn't... an intelligent designer!

Religion and science don't overlap. That's it. Religion deals with spirituality and science deals with the natural world. The intelligent design argument is invalid in its entirety.

Quote:

Faith is a stupid thing, would you belive blindly in anything else without evidence?

I never once spoke of faith or belief. Why bring it up?

Written by RockeRoy on 18.08.2010 at 18:42

Sorry i didn't see everything else you wrote before i said the last thing, so i get confused, are you just not a big fan of The god delusion or are you not a big fan of The god delusion and belive in god? If i'm going to answer the long one you wrote i would like to know.

Dawkins upsets me, because he has written a book on philosophy, when he knows nothing of philosopphy. His arguments against ID are good enough, but he doesn't understand what theological philosophers mean when they talk about God (he even said Mary is God in anything but name). I admit that I will probably never reveal my views on theism here, because it is more fun that way. When Dembski and Behe talk about science without understanding it, I will take them down, when Dawkins talks about philosophy, he get's the same treatment. This way, no one can accuse me of being biased.

Quote:

And i would just like to say that if dawkins doesn't live up to your standards, all the evidence is still there. Dawkins didn't find all the evidences he just tries to explain them.

I assume by "evidence" you mean his arguments. Well, no. Dawkins misunderstands and misinterprets theologians and philosophers and argues against a God that no one has ever even posited, such as a God capable of regress or a material God.

I must say your use of the term "evidence" is migrane inducing.

Written by RockeRoy on 18.08.2010 at 18:23

well, I don't know if you just don't know about the HUGE amount of evidence there is against god

Beg yer pardon... WHAT evidence?! And yeh, it becomes migraine inducing.

Speaking bout Dawkins and commenting on ErnilEnNaur's posts, Dawkins most probably has a very primitive conception about God... and according to this conception, yes, there is no God such as Dawkins is imagining...
And if a person's conception of God is similar to the one of TFSP or Santa Claus, then yes... a God like this does not exist...

Written by Ernis on 18.08.2010 at 21:54

Written by RockeRoy on 18.08.2010 at 18:23

well, I don't know if you just don't know about the HUGE amount of evidence there is against god

Beg yer pardon... WHAT evidence?! And yeh, it becomes migraine inducing.

Speaking bout Dawkins and commenting on ErnilEnNaur's posts, Dawkins most probably has a very primitive conception about God... and according to this conception, yes, there is no God such as Dawkins is imagining...
And if a person's conception of God is similar to the one of TFSP or Santa Claus, then yes... a God like this does not exist...

Ok i'm sorry i just wrote my whole answer to ErnilEnNaur post, and posted it, but i left out something so i removed it, and when i pushed control+c it was lost. And i have to go now, so i answer later on. but just to answer WHAT evidence i mean Fossils, Dna and missing links to mention the big three or whatever... i expect that you know about these, but these are not cvalified evidence in your opinion, right? it's a lot of people who cheers that opinion with you. What would be evidence good enough for you all, since we can't proove anything 100%?? the last 1% prosent is called common sense and reason!

Written by RockeRoy on 18.08.2010 at 22:09

Fossils, Dna and missing links to mention the big three or whatever...

Fossils... yes. Fossils of the organisms that once were present. So? How is this an evidence AGAINST God? I can see no possibility how they absolutely can be...

DNA? Yes... how can DNA be evidence AGAINST God? Do you wish to say that DNA cannot have been created by God because MAN made it up instead?

Same thing with the nature in general... the earlier science paid attention and researched the way the things have been made to work in the nature around us. How the organisms all resemble each other in a manner. How all kinds of patterns and laws all follow certain logic. Take the golden cut as an example. The golden cut that determines the harmony in the shape of a structure, such as of a living organism. Beginning with the fractals of a type of cauliflower and ending with the beauty of a harmonious face.

All these things were there... they always were and man, who, after all, has had a written history of about 5000 years which is nothing compared to the millions, milliards of years before that... how can man say that "I know very well what happened then!" It does seem that it is claimed that humans invented electricity, humans invented DNA, humans invented EVERYTHING... no God... anywhere...

Well... humans just have discovered things that have always existed... They have just learnt some bits and pieces of the world... and already they say... NO! There's NO GOD AT ALL!

Missing links? What missing links? Speaking of bigfoot, the missing link that breaks the supposed line between man and his supposed "common ancestor with apes"... This missing link has not been found, that's why I imagine it's called the MISSING link... which means you cannot really tell that man and apes indeed have this common ancestor at all...

Big three? You mean General Motors, Ford and Chrysler?

Common sense and reason... I know I think I have it... loads of it...