The God Delusion

by Peppermint 103 Replies latest jw friends

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    Dawkins is an ultra fanatical evolutionist with an axe to grind against religion he has even been called Darwin's rottweiler a play on words with Darwin's bulldog as Huxley called himself. I can't understand what better moral system, relative to Christianity, a morally bankrupt ideology like evolution can offer to this world. It is Christian fanatics and bigots that have been causing problems, Christianity is not the violence promoting Islam.

    I have been reading a book by Anthony Colpo which blows apart the myth that cholesterol causes heart disease a very eye opening book: The great cholesterol con.

  • Peppermint
    Peppermint

    Peppermint,

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention - I'm getting a copy for Christmas from my lovely wifey!

    Why aren't you coming to the Aposta Curry?

    Ian

    Ian,

    I would love to go but I dont think I will have any transport available. When is the latest we can let you know?

  • Dansk
    Dansk

    Peppermint,

    You have a pm.

    Ian

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    Unsurprisingly, I bought the book yesterday as soon as it came out. I'm about a third of the way through, and even though he's preaching to the choir with me, I'm really enjoying it. While I'm familiar with the arguments, Dawkins writing is, as always, elegant and imaginative, and he makes genuinely thought-provoking points. He pulls no punches here and makes sure that he is not only including the God of the Old Testament (whom he calls "the most unpleasant character in all fiction") but all the gods that theists and deists believe in. He explains why some things that people call gods don't really deserve the title, and why he disagrees with many of his atheist colleagues who "bend over backwards" to avoid offending people's religious sensibilities. (He doesn't even go easy on the agnostics!)

    One point which I found enlightening was Dawkins easy dismissal of the intelligent design movement. Their argument is essentially that everything that looks designed must have a designer, the universe looks designed, therefore it has a designer. He turns it on his head with the statement that anything complex enough to be a designer has only ever been observed as the end product of a slow evolutionary process.

    I highly recommend this book (or at least the first four chapters), but I am all too sadly aware that many of those who stand to learn the most from reading it never will.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    I heard that dawkins calls pantheism a sexed up atheism. Any comments?

    S

  • RunningMan
    RunningMan
    (He doesn't even go easy on the agnostics!)

    I have always maintained that agnostics are just atheists without any balls. And, I can get away with saying that without worry of being beaten up by agnostics, because well, they don't have any balls.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    Satanus:

    I heard that dawkins calls pantheism a sexed up atheism. Any comments?

    That's true. Pantheism is the idea that "God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations", which is really just a way of redefining the universe as God. It's not a very useful definition, and is not what most people mean by God. Dawkins argues that this is just a way of expressing awe at the marvels of the universe and doesn't bear much relation to what he is calling a god.

  • TopHat
    TopHat

    One point which I found enlightening was Dawkins easy dismissal of the intelligent design movement. Their argument is essentially that everything that looks designed must have a designer, the universe looks designed, therefore it has a designer. He turns it on his head with the statement that anything complex enough to be a designer has only ever been observed as the end product of a slow evolutionary process.

    Dawkins was there during the evolutionary process? Was he?

    Creation by an Intelligent being makes much more sense than evolution ever will! The making of two sexes, male and female, is reason enough

  • Bstndance
    Bstndance
    Fanatical? LMAO !!! Writing books and expressing one's opinions is being a "fanatic"?

    Then I guess Ann Coulter is not fanatical.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Funkyd

    Ok, thanks.

    is not what most people mean by God.

    True.

    Dawkins argues that this is just a way of expressing awe at the marvels of the universe and doesn't bear much relation to what he is calling a god.

    I guess he lets me off easy, although, i don't think that he really understands the pantheist concept.

    S

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit