The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[Royston]

But who's the idiot here?!?!

 

You ?

 

My housemate bought The God Delusion quite recently, and I have been meaning to read it. From what I scanned through, there seems to be a concentration on the Christian fundamentalists in the States. I do take exception to some of Dawkins views, but I need to read this book, to get a more formulated opinion. I'm hoping my pre-prejudice won't get in the way.

 

EDIT: Just an afterthought, but shouldn't the book review sub forum be strictly science, because, quite frankly, some of the comments I've read in this thread, are embarrassing to read.

[thedarkshade]

You ? [/url]

 

... some of the comments I've read in this thread, are embarrassing to read.

Why would that be? Would you like to share those particular comments and tell us why do you think are embarrassing to read? Because I really want to know if Dawkins screw anything up in there (which I doubt) or was it you that screw it up by misunderstanding it!

[Vexer]

I heard a radio interview from the "letter to a Christian Nation" guy ('Sam Harris', Google says), and I have to say, I agreed with everything he said. He said it so well. It was weird to hear him so honestly and clearly respond to the (what I presumed) was a (hostile) Christian interviewer.

 

Kinda things I think, but are not 'allowed' to say. He said them.

 

"Some things are absurd. And we must be allowed to call them so."

 

I'm guessing my above post will not be move or deleted. Unlike other of my posts, which did not meet the forum masters political requirements here

 

For example, in the interests of evidence, I mentioned the book, "The Dawkins Delusion", but that post was immediately deleted. And me, warned.

 

This is Strange Science.

 

 

I have my own dedicated ridicule and abuse thread now, if you want to join in. Perhaps that will shut me up. Do you think.

[Sayonara]

I'm guessing my above post will not be move or deleted. Unlike other of my posts, which did not meet the forum masters political requirements here

 

For example, in the interests of evidence, I mentioned the book, "The Dawkins Delusion", but that post was immediately deleted. And me, warned.

The post was not deleted; that is a lie. It was moved to a thread of its very own.

 

I have my own dedicated ridicule and abuse thread now, if you want to join in. Perhaps that will shut me up. Do you think.

There is no such thread. What there is is a thread which begins with your post and deteriotes into a jovial discussion about possible names for YT's take on creationist-less creationism.

 

Stop mischaracterising the valid actions of the staff on this site as some kind of crusade of censorship against you, and stop lying about staff actions. If we were going to censor you, you would first need to say something compelling and controversial, rather than just flaunting the rules of our community.

 

And stop derailing other people's threads - it is getting very tiresome.

[pioneer]

We do live in a free market culture. Good marketing needs to get the audience excited. It can also benefit by free publicity by engaging a group that will make news trying to fight back. It may be good salesmanship with the motivation less to create understanding but more for free market. His meme theory is better, in proportion, but his engaging group was better able to snub him behind closed doors, where he was not able to benefit as much by publicity. He may have temporarily given up on altruism due to the rational dogmatists. If he can't win them with altruism, take their money, using all the free publicity.

 

A meme (pronounced /miːm/[1] or /mɛm/[citation needed]) consists of any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that gets transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. Examples include thoughts, ideas, theories, practices, habits, songs, dances and moods and terms such as race, culture, and ethnicity. Memes propagate themselves and can move through a "culture" in a manner similar to the behavior of a virus

 

Stealthily, he has used his meme theory to make money. I would not be surprised if this social experiment helps with is meme theory. That will be the next book, maybe using this experiment to help fund good science. It is interesting to see theory at work. It also suggests that atheists are more vulnerable to this meme ready to just run with it even willing to pay for the right to be infected.

[shadowacct]

No you don't.

 

I don't have any imaginary friends' date=' and I don't have to respect someones belief, regardless of how important that belief is to them personally.

 

Why am I supposed to accept someone's belief in god, when I don't simultaneously accept someone's belief that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns?[/quote']The saddest person on this forum is iNow. He is fighting for what? Emptyness? The void? Nothing? Poor guy.... No, you don't have to respect any person who believes there is more between heaven and earth than you can see with your two little eyes (and their possible extensions). But I also can't respect any person like iNow, who one day will be rotting two feet under the grass, with no hope and nothing more. Isn't that a sad thing? Emptyness, void, darkness, no more science (for him), no respect.

[Mr Skeptic]

The saddest person on this forum is iNow. He is fighting for what? Emptyness? The void? Nothing? Poor guy.... No, you don't have to respect any person who believes there is more between heaven and earth than you can see with your two little eyes (and their possible extensions). But I also can't respect any person like iNow, who one day will be rotting two feet under the grass, with no hope and nothing more. Isn't that a sad thing? Emptyness, void, darkness, no more science (for him), no respect.

 

You're assuming that iNow does not believe in life after death.

[shadowacct]

That's as fake as the purple unicorn with its farts, most DNA structure and cell structure is ruptured by the freezing process and you know that. It's only postponing the process of rotting two feet under the grass. One day, the freezers will go out when noone cares about the frozen pieces of meat inside anymore, and then the process sets in, as described above

[Sayonara]

I think Mr Skeptic was having a little joke.

 

Please refrain from making personal attacks against members.

[shadowacct]

I also made a little joke, about Mr Skeptic's one

 

Btw, iNow is just an example, I picked his name, but there are more like him over here

[Mr Skeptic]

Sooo, what do you plan to do after you die?

[iNow]

The saddest person on this forum is iNow. He is fighting for what? Emptyness? The void? Nothing? Poor guy.... No, you don't have to respect any person who believes there is more between heaven and earth than you can see with your two little eyes (and their possible extensions). But I also can't respect any person like iNow, who one day will be rotting two feet under the grass, with no hope and nothing more. Isn't that a sad thing? Emptyness, void, darkness, no more science (for him), no respect.

 

Your statement is funny, really. You assume that because I choose not to believe in God that my life is somehow empty and void.

 

This is actually more telling of your personal situation, in that all of your life's meaning and importance rests in some imaginary friend.

 

My life is quite rich, my relationships quite profound, and my existence is enriched by the beauty of nature itself. I don't need fairy tales and others who believe in the same fairy tales to comfort me or give my life meaning.

 

Your assumption that one cannot know happiness, that one's life must be void and dark if there is no acceptance of god is ignorant, short sighted, and insulting.

 

What I am fighting for is the maturation of our society, the people within it, and a more robust acceptance of the need for critical thinking. Religion is a cancer, as evidenced by the consistent and recurring stupidity which it not only inspires, but apparently reinforces.

[Realitycheck]

shadowacct!

 

Your post is off-topic. Please take note of Post#1 and try as hard as you can to adhere to its subject matter, or your posts could be transferred to ... Speculations, which basically means that your word doesn't count for anything. Of course, you could always start a thread in Speculations defending the idea of God, and then maybe, just maybe, if you make a good enough argument, you could work your way back out of Speculations. A good explanation of His quantifiable aspects would be a good starting point, then if you branched out into explaining how his omnipotency transcends the speed of light will really get the ball rolling.

[thedarkshade]

But I also can't respect any person like iNow, who one day will be rotting two feet under the grass, with no hope and nothing more.

You are so wrong about the respect! Just stick a little more in the forum and you will see.

 

Btw, iNow is just an example, I picked his name, but there are more like him over here

I wish there are more like him over here.

[ParanoiA]

Here's an appropriate reflection:

 

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."

 

I don't really get the problem. iNow made it very clear he doesn't have to respect anyone's beliefs. The consequences being that it offends others due to the lack of mutual respect. He got what was coming to him. Apes throwing poop. I thought we were better than that.

 

This is why I don't agree with the notion that we should all run around disrespecting each other's beliefs. That's childish and unthoughtful.

 

I think some in here could use a dose of humility and the realization that just because you don't "need" to believe in certain things doesn't give you a monopoly on reason. Severian reminded me one day that all of us live in faith that the laws of physics and reality that we have witnessed in the past will continue to happen in the future.

 

All of this just to say, it's not noble to act like a pretentious twit and shit on other people's belief systems who have done nothing to solicit such nonsense. And I'm also sorry Shade looks up to that.

[YT2095]

it`s interesting to note (with some amusement even) that iNows` plentiful and dogmatic posts with more than apparent frustration in this thread is non other than pontification.

 

there are Very highly qualified Scientists here, that are also atheistic, and they don`t behave in this way?

 

iNow, I would like to ask, what IS troubling you so much dude?

you`r Quite clearly unhappy about Religion and you strike me (and others) as being Very Extremist about it

you tend to be Otherwise quite Rational and Intelligent, w`sup?

[Severian]

My life is quite rich, my relationships quite profound, and my existence is enriched by the beauty of nature itself.

 

How do you know? Have you ever been anyone else? Do you have anything to compare to?

[Glider]

I'm not really sure where these latter posts have come from. I have re-read the entire thread and as far as I can see, iNow has participated with reason and reasonably in tune with the mood of the thread, until the extremely patronising post by shadowacct who dragged up iNow's post (#9) from the first page of the thread, just to attack it.

 

Now I think he's being misrepresented and patronised again and I can't really see why, although I don't think it has much to do with the content of his posts.

 

As far as I can see, his strongest assertion in this thread is that you do not have to respect a person's beliefs. I agree with that position and said so in post #18. To reiterate: "It is unreasonable to ask a reasonable person to respect an unreasonable belief. You can only respect the right of another to hold it. Should they choose to present it, it is absolutely reasonable to question it.".

 

So I don't understand why he is now being attacked; misrepresented...

This is why I don't agree with the notion that we should all run around disrespecting each other's beliefs.

(Not being obliged to respect a belief is not the same as 'running around disresepecting each other's beliefs').

 

...and patronised ...

it`s interesting to note (with some amusement even) ... you tend to be Otherwise quite Rational and Intelligent, w`sup?

Maybe I missed something?

 

How do you know? Have you ever been anyone else? Do you have anything to compare to?

By that measure, how do you know your own life is not completely empty?

[ParanoiA]

Should they choose to present it, it is absolutely reasonable to question it.".

 

Yes - when they choose to present it. This post by iNow doesn't sound like he's waiting around for someone to choose to present it.

 

No you don't.

 

I don't have any imaginary friends' date=' and I don't have to respect someones belief, regardless of how important that belief is to them personally.

 

Why am I supposed to accept someone's belief in god, when I don't simultaneously accept someone's belief that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns?[/quote']

 

I can accept the notion that I've misrepresented his intent if he could clear up his intent. This point seems, to me anyway, to imply pride in one's rejection of other's beliefs and to display it at all possible opportunities, whether solicited or not.

 

I don't know about you, but I HATE it when christians do that to me, so why in the hell would I do that to them? You want to believe in god? Great, but don't throw it in my face unless you're prepared to ideologically spar over it. I didn't ask for your lectures on god...etc - you get the idea.

 

Same goes for those of us who believe in something different. We don't have the high ground to throw it in their face either. Just seems fair to me. To assume otherwise, is to be a hypocrite.

 

By that measure, how do you know your own life is not completely empty?

 

He doesn't. If I may be so bold, I believe his point is exactly that - eat your humble pie and stop elevating yourself above others just because you've got a logic system that "works" for you and therefore presume the rest of us are missing out.

[shadowacct]

OK, now its time for me to come back on this. ParanoiA exactly got the point and he could not phrase it better. I was so extremely patronizing for a reason! I just found it is time to stir up some dust and then it may be necessary to use strong words, otherwise the dust may settle again, unnoticed

 

I really dislike people who try to ram their belief in my throat (something like some Jehova's witnesses try to do when they push their feet in the opening of the door), but the same is true with the way some people over here (only some!) are trying to ram their atheist view into the throat of everybody else without any respect.

[iNow]

I wish there are more like him over here.

I appreciate your support, shade, but I am quite aware that I have many faults. Apparently, others here at SFN are quite aware of this as well!

 

I don't lie to myself about the areas in which I need to improve. I don't pretend I'm perfect. I don't bury my head in the sand about parts of myself which are uncomfortable. I just face them, and work on them, trying to improve as I move through this existence. That's really all I can do, and hopefully have some fun while doing it.

 

 

 

 

 

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."

 

I don't really get the problem. iNow made it very clear he doesn't have to respect anyone's beliefs. The consequences being that it offends others due to the lack of mutual respect. He got what was coming to him.

While I wouldn't go so low as to call it "apes throwing poop," I quite agree with your comment. When I say such things, I know full well that others might respond in kind, and I accept that. What's important, though, is that I'm not doing it just to be a jerk. While I may sometimes come across as one, my intent is not solely to be an prick.

 

I suggest that there is some benefit in being abrasive, especially on issues as historically taboo and emotional as this. It stimulates the dialog and it gets people thinking. THAT is my goal. Further, my tone often encourages people who might not otherwise be inclined to post or share their personal thoughts on these sensitive issues to do so. Whether they agree or disagree with what I say, my approach tends to compel them to respond.

 

People responding and discussing this openly is good! It's the ONLY way we'll figure these things out and move forward collectively. From a more selfish standpoint, someone's response may help me to see something to which I was previously blind. It may challenge my argument, forcing me to think in a new way, and hence making us both better in the long term.

 

And... all of that benefit and dialog just because I agitated someone enough to compel them to respond after I asked something like, "How is this any different from someone who claims that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns?"

 

 

 

I think some in here could use a dose of humility and the realization that just because you don't "need" to believe in certain things doesn't give you a monopoly on reason.

This is not my position. I am not suggesting that people who actively practice religion are unreasonable, nor that I have some "monopoly" on reason because I, myself, don't believe in fairy tales or surround myself with others who do.

 

My position is that religion once served a purpose. Religion has since outlived it's usefulness, and it's time for us to grow up as a society, leaving such childish nonsense behind us. Religion and faith in untestable and unprovable imaginary entities is viral, and it's causing more harm than good.

 

I am not saying that religion is the cause of all evil in the world and that without it all evil would go away. No. I am saying that we'd be better without it.

 

I want you to tell me one moral act ever performed, uttered, or suggested by a religious person, someone who enslaves themselves to the inherent manipulation of some supernatural dictatorship, which could not also be performed, uttered, or suggested by a secularist... a non-believer. Just one.

 

You have time, as we're not face to face, to think about this and see if you can come up with something to be presented here for arbitration by the members and readers.

 

Now, tell me one immoral act, just one which was done because someone had "god's permission," or by someone acting explicitly on their faith. You've already thought of 2 or 3, and you'll have thought of more by the time you complete reading this post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

iNow, I would like to ask, what IS troubling you so much dude?

you`r Quite clearly unhappy about Religion and you strike me (and others) as being Very Extremist about it

you tend to be Otherwise quite Rational and Intelligent, w`sup?

You are confusing my passion for this issue with extremism.

 

All of the positive aspects of religion come from the community effect, not from faith. The stories of afterlife told to assuage fears of death and leverage behavior in the populace are like fairy tales used to calm a child in a storm or falsehoods to manipulate them and their behaviors (don't masturbate or you'll go blind, that sort of thing). Whether done with children or adults, in the context of parenting or spirituality, such actions are inherently untruthful and immoral.

 

My passion is about waking up, and moving beyond this nonsense. As I said above, I am often purposefully abrasive, knowing that I will polarize the sides and draw out the best arguments from each. While this sets me up as a bit of a target, it also improves the scope of my understanding of the topic, as well as my ability to better articulate why I have the perspective I do and share that with others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you know? Have you ever been anyone else? Do you have anything to compare to?

I know that my life is enriched and my relationships profound because I use my past experiences as a baseline. Like you, all I have to go on is my own perspective, and everything is defined relative to previous perspectives, experiences, and learning. This would apply to me even if I chose to accept these fairy tales as true, even if I chose to posit some unprovable purple unicorn which shat everything into existence... Just like you.

 

I sense that you may be suggesting that I can only "know" that my life is enriched and that my relationships profound due to some sort of "faith." If you are, then I can accept that suggestion. However, it would also mean that you are equivocating, as this faith is based in comparative experience, empirical differences, and actual life events, so it is not the same as faith in the religious/spiritual sense which (by definition) has no evidence, proof, or even the possibility of ever attaining either.

 

I'd like to better understand your position, though, Severian, as I'm not sure I've accurately represented or respected it above. Maybe you can elaborate?

 

 

 

 

Your right "not to be offended" does not outweigh my right to offend.

I respect your right to believe whatever you want.

I don't have to respect the beliefs themselves.

These distinctions makes all the difference in the world.

[ParanoiA]

When I say such things, I know full well that others might respond in kind, and I accept that. What's important, though, is that I'm not doing it just to be a jerk. While I may sometimes come across as one, my intent is not solely to be an prick.

 

Noted. At least you don't pretend to be indignified when it comes back at you. Can't say I agree with your ideas of abrasiveness, because good thoughtful discussion, productive discussion does not happen when mixed with anger and resentment. The best growth comes from calm, calculated reason. Just my opinion, of course.

 

I want you to tell me one moral act ever performed' date=' uttered, or suggested by a religious person, someone who enslaves themselves to the inherent manipulation of some supernatural dictatorship, which could not also be performed, uttered, or suggested by a secularist... a non-believer. Just one.

 

You have time, as we're not face to face, to think about this and see if you can come up with something to be presented here for arbitration by the members and readers.

 

Now, tell me one immoral act, just one which was done because someone had "god's permission," or by someone acting explicitly on their faith. You've already thought of 2 or 3, and you'll have thought of more by the time you complete reading this post.[/quote']

 

First, understand that unsubstantiated beliefs (purple unicorn farts) and religion (supernatural dictatorship) are two entirely different things.

 

We've been through this before. We're in agreement on religion - we're not in agreement in respecting other's beliefs. Surely I don't need to go into my whole anti-religion spill again.

[Glider]

Yes - when they choose to present it. This post by iNow doesn't sound like he's waiting around for someone to choose to present it.

I can accept the notion that I've misrepresented his intent if he could clear up his intent.

Perhaps that might be best. I understood his response to thedarkshades’ comment “Yes, I understand that but Dawkins must realize (which he does) that for a believer God is quite a big deal, and if he told that to muslims, he would be physically attacked. You just need to respect everyone's beliefs.” to assume the topic of respect for theist beliefs was already ‘out there’. I may be wrong.

I don't know about you, but I HATE it when christians do that to me, so why in the hell would I do that to them? You want to believe in god? Great, but don't throw it in my face unless you're prepared to ideologically spar over it. I didn't ask for your lectures on god...etc - you get the idea.

Yes, I do.

Same goes for those of us who believe in something different. We don't have the high ground to throw it in their face either. Just seems fair to me. To assume otherwise, is to be a hypocrite.

I suppose so although, if I may say so, the idea of fairness in this instance does seem to be predicated on the idea that all beliefs are of equal merit.

He doesn't. If I may be so bold, I believe his point is exactly that - eat your humble pie and stop elevating yourself above others just because you've got a logic system that "works" for you and therefore presume the rest of us are missing out.

I got the impression that it was shadowacct that made the presumption that iNow was missing out:

The saddest person on this forum is iNow. He is fighting for what? Emptyness? The void? Nothing? Poor guy.... No, you don't have to respect any person who believes there is more between heaven and earth than you can see with your two little eyes (and their possible extensions). But I also can't respect any person like iNow, who one day will be rotting two feet under the grass, with no hope and nothing more. Isn't that a sad thing? Emptyness, void, darkness, no more science (for him), no respect.

But I’m still unsure of Severian’s logic . By the way you have explained it, it would seem to imply that nobody can tell whether or not their lives are full or empty? I’m definitely missing something I think.

[JHAQ]

Read "The Selfish Gene" Also by the same author-- a classic . How do Theists reconcile a benign & "loving " God with the cold indifference & harsh reality of natural selection ? All I am is a puppet controlled by my genome to be what I am without any choice in the matter -- beyond , perhaps a degree of "free" will .

[iNow]

I understood his response to thedarkshades’ comment “Yes, I understand that but Dawkins must realize (which he does) that for a believer God is quite a big deal, and if he told that to muslims, he would be physically attacked. You just need to respect everyone's beliefs.” to assume the topic of respect for theist beliefs was already ‘out there’. I may be wrong.

You're not.