(June 20, 2009 at 6:29 pm)Anto Kennedy Wrote: The books, the many books, are not the evidence, but the guide.
They're not evidence, indeed. And what 'guide' they are depends on who's reading them...all the 'morals' in it are subjective...and there are no morals--or general guidence--you can get from the bible that you can't get somewhere else.
Quote:Similarly the GD should have been written as a guide to a non-theistic viewpoint rather than as an attack on these other guides to theistic viewpoints.
It's not about a non-theistic guide though, the book is about why God is a delusion, hence the title - "The God Delusion".
Quote:I understand Dawkins' mission, and I support him in it, but he is over reaching himself. It's a sad case of delusional grandeur.He provides his reasons for why God is a delusion, and that's what it is primarily about. And if you have specific problems with the way he interprets the bible in the chapter on morality etc, then that's bound to happen simply because - viewing on the bible is subjective! He was presenting the best view he could and presenting his arguments on the matter.
He also makes a very good case for why Religion causes problems in the world. The fact that when people people fundamentally believe, literally and absolutely the exact word of the Bible or The Koran (for example) and follow through. It can lead to all sorts of problems. Things that are done "in the name of faith" - because there's lots of nasty stuff in for example, the Old Testament and the Koran. The New Testament certainly isn't perfect though. And it also introduces Hell? Correct me if I'm wrong there.
Quote:BTW, he does need to read the Bible and other Holy Books to first define God, before dismissing the existence thereof.
The God of the Bible--for example-- was supposed to create the universe. He is a Supernatural Creator of the universe. That's the definition Dawkins is using - and there is no evidence for any God defined in that way. ''Holy' Books' are not evidence for the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe, so no, he doesn't need to read them to dismiss the existence. Just as you don't need to read the FSM Gospel to dismiss the FSM. There is no evidence that the bible is any different.
If I write a book (however well or badly written) about why the universe was created by a Giant Squid called Mork Lork J.R the 7th that is entirely made out of Tofu, and that that is, indeed - the One True God; would you need to read that book to dismiss the existence of such a being? Books are not evidence of anything supernatural or any God at all, in the sense of a 'Supernatural Creator of the universe' (which is how Dawkins defined "God" in TGD). It doesn't matter how well or badly written the books are, how sensible or silly they are - they're not evidence.
EvF
