Quote:It would've been nice to see something new in it though.

Why assume there is anything new, though? Xtians never have any new arguments. It's always the same old shit with them.

(November 10, 2013 at 1:21 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Haven't read it (or any of Dawkins' other books), and given what I've heard about it, I doubt I will.

If you are interested in understanding evolution, you shouldn't avoid his books on evolution.

He is a clear and graceful expositor on science.

(November 9, 2013 at 10:53 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: I found it almost inconceivable that this apparent 'champion of atheism' failed to raise a single point that I hadn't considered before my somewhat intellectually inferior self had left school.

That is because your intellectually inferior self have inexplicably confused the role of "champion" with the role of "theoretician".

Theoretician eats because he can come up with new theories and arguments or at least cloth old ones in new skins.

Champion eats because he can advocate using whatever argument that is most persuasive to the as yet unpersuaded.

If basic argument for atheism is already sound, valid and persuasive, and yet Dawkins had continued to occupy himself with being a sort of Plantiga for atheism, would your opinion of him improve or worsen?

My opinion of Dawkins would improve if he shut the fuck up and stuck to science.

(November 10, 2013 at 12:57 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: My opinion of Dawkins would improve if he shut the fuck up and stuck to science.

His approach to atheism is rather more science than extrapolation, rhetoric, or sophistry.

I would venture to say he has also been more pursuasive to cultural theists than hitchens, who appeal more to the nearly already convinced.

(November 10, 2013 at 1:54 am)Aral Gamelon Wrote: Not to derail but does anyone have any suggestions on worthwhile atheistic literature?

The Bible is the best Atheistic literature. Anyone not indoctrinated by the dogma will be fascinated that so many people find it convincing enough to mold their life around.

---

(November 10, 2013 at 11:31 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:It would've been nice to see something new in it though.

Why assume there is anything new, though? Xtians never have any new arguments. It's always the same old shit with them.

Took the words out of my mouth. Until Xtians come up with better arguments, you can't expect Atheists to revise their refutations. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I enjoyed "Letter to a Christian Nation" I like how Sam Harris singles out the "Moderate Christian" and puts the screws to them using The Bible.

(November 10, 2013 at 1:17 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: I enjoyed "Letter to a Christian Nation" I like how Sam Harris singles out the "Moderate Christian" and puts the screws to them using The Bible.

One if my issues with Harris is that he tends to go for the low-hanging fruit- and the stereotypical Christian in this book doesn't resemble most of the Christians I know at all (although it does seem to resemble some of the ones here). It seemed like taking easy potshots just to piss people off, which is fine, but it isn't adding anything to any useful dialogue.

I think the consensus - not aimed at us, is correct.

I've read all of the above and found them entertaining but not much more.

Frankly I got a lot more from "Theoretical Bullshit" on Youtube. He fair blew my mind.

(November 9, 2013 at 11:55 pm)MitchBenn Wrote: As another life-long atheist I found TGD codified or clarified a lot of things I already knew or suspected, and introduced a few new ideas....

HOWEVER, I've heard it cited by many former theists as having been a vital influence in their deconversion process, so let's not knock it just cos it didn't tell US much we didn't already know...

Though I found the book tiring to read, it was very useful in helping me achieve my full de-conversion. The book can be a very useful tool to theists who are on the fence with their faith.

I face-palmed when I read his critique of deism. It seems like he just looked up deism in the dictionary and then did a quick dismissal of that straw man as "watered-down theism".

An atheist should know better than to go by what the dictionary says, given how many dictionaries to this day define atheism as "the belief that there is no god" or something along those lines. It would be like a Christian dismissing atheism on the grounds that "atheists can't provide any evidence that atheism is accurate and correct." Oh wait, one actually did take that approach and wondered why he got laughed at.





As with atheism, the dictionary botches an attempt to convey what deism is, defining it often as "the belief that God created and then abandoned the universe." It seems frankly like a straw man definition contrived by Christians to fit their polemics against deism.

I've said before it's largely atheism with poetic flourishes. How I live my life is indistinguishable from how I would live it as an atheist. The theist and I both use the word "God" and the similarity ends there. Even our concept of just what that word, "God", means is very different.

I know of no deist authors which claimed that God has "abandoned" the universe, with such dramatic language evoking a deadbeat dad. For me, it's a matter of scale and a rejection of the arrogant attitude of the theist that the universe was created for them and that God wants a personal relationship with them. I've used the bacteria example before, of the bacteria in a cultivated petri dish who talks to other bacteria about his personal relationship with The Great Lab Coat in the sky.

I have great respect for Dawkins as a scientist but he should stick to that and not branch off into philosophy.