(May 11, 2025 at 6:27 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 11, 2025 at 6:22 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I can’t imagine a pastor not saying that. If God is not superhuman and super intelligent, he’s not much of a god.

Do you believe the supernatural exists? If not, then surely you can see how Dawkins defined God as non-existent from the start.

Dawkins didn't create that definition, religions did, and of course he doesn't believe any deity exists, that was rather the point of the book. If you have a natural deity, then there would be natural data to examine and test, and all you have managed so far is to point at everything, and say "it's all evidence", not a very compelling argument.

However miracles would be out for a start, as they are defined as things that are inexplicable by natural or scientific law, I assume you know that miracles form a large part of the beliefs of most Christians?

(May 11, 2025 at 5:49 am)Alan V Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 9:07 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Dawkins lives in North Oxford. Oxford probably has a higher percentage of people who know theology well than just about any other city on the planet. 

Why didn't Dawkins get on his bicycle and visit one of them, so that he could have it explained to him why this whole thing is an argument against something which they don't believe? 

It is certainly true that God, "in the sense defined" by him, is a delusion.

(May 10, 2025 at 9:42 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Since divine simplicity is a fundamental point in Christian theology, this sentence is Dawkins announcing that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

The point which theologians often seem to miss is that the majority of believers do not believe in their rarified definitions of God, and that atheists critique ALL of the notions of God, typically starting with the most popular ones.

Further, I can't believe you skipped right over my correction of your idea that Dawkins only addressed the "simplest, most childish" idea of God.  He certainly did not.  

You are also calling the majority of believers "childish" and "delusional," which is exactly Dawkins' point.

Do you have any statistics on what the majority believe? 

Dawkins' idea of God is simple and childish. But you're right, I'm sure there are simpler and more childish views as well.

I have no problem with the idea that the majority of believers have a simplistic view of things. I have no problem with Dawkins arguing against that view. But it means he still has all the hard work left to do.

(May 11, 2025 at 7:00 am)Belacqua Wrote: I have no problem with the idea that the majority of believers have a simplistic view of things. I have no problem with Dawkins arguing against that view. But it means he still has all the hard work left to do.

Yes, and other atheists addressed more difficult questions -- Victor Stenger for instance. No one is good at everything, so we don't usually judge people by what they are not trying to do.

What bothered a lot of people is that Dawkins pointed out how laughable many common ideas of God are. The problem we are trying to address in this discussion is what, exactly, is left of the God-concept after you eliminate the worst ideas? Is there anything useful at all?

(May 11, 2025 at 7:00 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 11, 2025 at 5:49 am)Alan V Wrote: The point which theologians often seem to miss is that the majority of believers do not believe in their rarified definitions of God, and that atheists critique ALL of the notions of God, typically starting with the most popular ones.

Further, I can't believe you skipped right over my correction of your idea that Dawkins only addressed the "simplest, most childish" idea of God.  He certainly did not.  

You are also calling the majority of believers "childish" and "delusional," which is exactly Dawkins' point.

Dawkins' idea of God is simple and childish. 

They're not his ideas, he's an atheist, they are ideas religions have peddled, that he was addressing. 

Quote:I have no problem with the idea that the majority of believers have a simplistic view of things. I have no problem with Dawkins arguing against that view. But it means he still has all the hard work left to do.

Not really, the heavy lifting belongs to those claiming a deity exists, but saying just that wouldn't sell many books I guess.

(May 11, 2025 at 7:10 am)Alan V Wrote:

(May 11, 2025 at 7:00 am)Belacqua Wrote: I have no problem with the idea that the majority of believers have a simplistic view of things. I have no problem with Dawkins arguing against that view. But it means he still has all the hard work left to do.

Yes, and other atheists addressed more difficult questions -- Victor Stenger for instance.  No one is good at everything, so we don't usually judge people by what they are not trying to do.

What bothered a lot of people is that Dawkins pointed out how laughable many common ideas of God are.  The problem we are trying to address in this discussion is what, exactly, is left of the God-concept after you eliminate the worst ideas?  Is there anything useful at all?

Well, OK. If we accept that Dawkins' isn't trying to argue that God is a delusion, but only certain popular ideas of it, then that lets him off the hook. 

https://www.amazon.com/Reason-Faith-Revo...21&sr=8-20


https://www.amazon.com/I-Dont-Believe-in...45&sr=8-15

Quote:There are two radical and dangerous sides to the debate on faith and religion in America: Christian fundamentalists, who see religious faith as their exclusive prerogative, and New Atheists, who brand all religious belief as irrational. Too often, the religious majority - those committed to tolerance and compassion as well as their faith - are caught in the middle.

Chris Hedges critiques the mindset that rages against religion and faith. He accuses the New Atheists - led by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens - of promoting a belief system that is not, as they claim, based on reason and science, but on a simplified worldview of us vs. them, intolerance toward behaviors that are not understood, and the false myths of human progress and moral superiority.

So the apologists and their sympathizers wiggle and squirm and dance around

Quote:New Atheism is so millennial.

New Apologetic Theism is so millennial.

(May 11, 2025 at 7:10 am)Alan V Wrote:

(May 11, 2025 at 7:00 am)Belacqua Wrote: I have no problem with the idea that the majority of believers have a simplistic view of things. I have no problem with Dawkins arguing against that view. But it means he still has all the hard work left to do.

Yes, and other atheists addressed more difficult questions -- Victor Stenger for instance.  No one is good at everything, so we don't usually judge people by what they are not trying to do.

What bothered a lot of people is that Dawkins pointed out how laughable many common ideas of God are.  The problem we are trying to address in this discussion is what, exactly, is left of the God-concept after you eliminate the worst ideas?  Is there anything useful at all?

It's odd how this question has evaded us for 79 pages as well. Surely the very first thing one would offer in such a debate, is the best or most compelling reason they think they have.  

What sort of deity would create one species of evolved great ape, without the intellectual capacity to make an informed decision about its existence, if it wanted them to believe it was real, or even punished or tortured them for failing to believe it? 

It would either have to be inept, or cruelly indifferent.

Now their recommending books by hacks attacking strawman and imaginary enemies 


When apologists critique Atheist's 

Theology the ability of Theists to invent superpowers for their chosen deity there like a child who says 

Timmy- I shot you Billy 

Billy- Nah I'm invincible

Timmy- Well I have  invincible that turn off invincibility 

Billy- Nah I have super invincible


Atheist- Gives a sound reason why god makes no sense 

Theist- Nah my god has  super invincible