I am currently reading " The GOD delusion" by Richard Dawkins and would appreciate comments from those who have read it,pro &con.

by smiddy 64 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Chariklo

  Perry, you are absolutely right. 100%.

  But actually the whole argument is a waste of forum space,because we know that the usual names wil say one thing and that you and I and others will say another. I've had this discussion before on here. You and I know full well that atheism is an expression of a way of thinking that does not allow that there is a god.

  Agnosticism is an expression of uncertainty, of doubt.

  Theism is a belief in the divine.

  But then will follow the howls of ridicule and firm statements that I don't know what I'm talking about, maybe attacks, maybe complaints to moderators as has happened recently.

  It's just all SO predictable, so why bother? This board is currently undergoing a wave of militant atheism, especially behind the leadership of some who not so very long ago were assiduously going door to door promoting the WT publishing company's literature. Others in the last week or so have pointed this out. We know who is going to say what.

  Well done, Perry, for hanging in there. You speak for all of us. But your voice will be drowned in the howls of disagreement. I'm not going to lengthen this thread by contributing to it again...hear the cheers, folks!...but I and very many silent voices will be applauding you as long as you have the stomach to continue, Perry!
• 

  cofty

  You and I know full well that atheism is an expression of a way of thinking that does not allow that there is a god.
  
  Agnosticism is an expression of uncertainty, of doubt. - Chariklo

  Well many atheists have explained this many times but Chariklo and others are determined not to listen.

  Nobody with a shred of common sense thinks they can prove there is no god. If this is your narrow definition of atheism then I have never encountered an atheist. You are arguing against a strawman.

  Strictly speaking the word "proof" only belongs in the maths class, in every other sphere of life we have to make the effort to weigh up the evidence.

  In UK law courts juries are asked to reach a verdict of guilty if the case for the prosecution is "proven beyond reasonable doubt".

  Once they have thoroughly considered all the DNA evidence, the forensics, the witness testimony, the CCTV, the telephone records and computer data etc etc they have to make a decision. If they consider the evidence to be incontravertible they will pass a guilty verdict.

  It is not their "best guess". Its not a matter of faith or personal preference or belief. At the same time they understand that if new evidence should come to light in the future then the verdict may change.

  If I was a juror considering the case against god I would not hesitate to give my verdict beyond all reasonable doubt.

  In the case against god I am thoroughly convinced of my conclusion and satisfied that I have more information to consider than I could possibly relate. I have listened thoughtfully to every possible defence and found it all to be vacuous wishful thinking. I even lived as an evangelical christian for 9 years and experienced all the existential "evidence" they ultimately depend on.

  An agnostic would reserve judgement - I do not. I have more than enough evidence to be certain but if new evidence ever comes to light I will be delighted to consider it seriously.

  So, like all other rational atheists I allow the remote possibility that I may be wrong in the same way I may be wrong about the non-existence celestial teapot.

  As I understand Dawkin's position I think it is similar to what I have described above. If it suits you to call that agnostic then suit yourself - its all semantics.

  Many believers only seem to abe able to cope with black-and-white definitions rather than trying to understand what others really think.
• 

  designs

  Its almost time for baby Jesus to appear in the manger except there is no proof of the year or date or the actual existence of said person. If you rely on the 4 Gospels and Romans for your 'proof' then you have only succeeded in showing that you have never spoken to a Rabbi. Huge burden for specific theists.
• 

  Borges

  Perry wrote:

  Since God is omnipresent, an atheist would by necessity have to be omnipresent himself to be able to declare that God doesn't exist, having looked everywhere for him and finding none.

  The paradox is of course is that if the atheist was omnipresent so as to be able to truthfully back up his claim, his declaration would immediately falsify his charge because being omnipresent himself.... he would in fact be God! This argument isn't valid, because you just can turn it around. Someone who claims that god is omnipresent, has to be omnipresent to, having looked everywhere for him and finding him in every place (even in Governing Body Meetings).
• 

  xchange

  Charilko - ...because we know that the usual names wil say one thing and that you and I and others will say another.

  That you are not interested in actually learning or listening to what atheists say is abundantly clear with this sentence.