The God Delusion

[Anto Kennedy]

To me it's just another book written and inspired by the fertile imagination of man.

I agree with that, and am glad to hear you've read the Bible (don't forget all the other holy texts, there are 1 billion Hindus in case you've forgotten)

But just because they're written by the "fertile imaginations of man" doesn't mean they can't contain truth, you can say goodbye to all forms of art if you do that, (and to me, religion, or rather myth, is art)

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.

Let's not go off-topic here, anyway I don't deal in morality, there's no such thing as morality in myth (all the incest, murder, rape and tyranny you can dream of is contained in myth)

It's not about a non-theistic guide though, the book is about why God is a delusion, hence the title - "The God Delusion".

I said it should have been a guide because he hasn't shown why belief in God is a delusion, other than attacking the intelligence of those who hold those beliefs.

Flippantly disregarding any and all religious manifestation as barbarian superstition is a mistake many many theists, deists and atheists alike have made from the times of Ancient Greece. It's an arrogant, imperialistic attitude which clouds us from finding truth in these mere fairy tales and folk stories.

He provides his reasons for why God is a delusion,

Which are poor, in my opinion.

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.

I don't deal in morality.

He also makes a very good case for why Religion causes problems in the world.

Humans cause problems, humans fix problems, humans kill, humans save. Don't take personal responsibility away from historical events. No historian worth his salt would even attempt to blame the worlds problems presently and previously in history on religion. But that's going off topic.

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.

Tell me something I don't know. However, if he did study up on just who this YHWH is, then he'd know that there cannot be any evidence for his existence.

YHWH is called YHWH for a reason, I am that I am, in others, "i dunno". Religions across the worl speak of the same primordial god. In Ireland it's Danu, in Buddhism it's the Adi Buddha, In Hinduism it's Brahman, in Egypt it is over a dozen gods including Amun, the eight gods of the Ogdoad or even Atum.

This God is always characterized as water, simply because water has no shape, no form, yet can take on any shape or form. You can't hold water, you can't grasp it, it is fluid, changing, life-giving, holding reality together.

How can you understand something which by it's very nature, always is what it is.

Just forget about the question of this god's existence, allow the concept to be, there will never be a resolution.

OFF TOPIC yet again. I want to criticize Dawkins' technique, not his views.

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?

Well, yeah.

I wouldn't bother though.

I'm sorry Anto, but EvF does have a point and I do get your point as well. However, that also depends on the subject/topic of discussion.

In this case, it's the existence of a "God".

No it's not! I don't want to get involved in THAT debate. I avoid that like the plague, always have.

I don't have to be a mechanic to know how to change my oil.

OKay then, how about "you need to be a rocket scientist to build a rocket that will be able to get to the moon, and back"

The point that I was making is that this is not Dawkins' field of expertise and the GD shows it. There are much better books out there that really can teach us a lot about religion and religious belief, both from an athiest and theist perspective, or neutral, which is the stance I try to take.

Point is, that even though that the education may help him a bit in making it easier when searching or yada yada. It still does not take away the fact of someone's thought and what he/she can see, hear, touch, taste and smell right in-front of them

You can't see, hear, touch, taste or smell a lot of things, we're designed specifically to have very narrow sensory ranges, it's a survival advantage.....i remember that was written in the GD (it's been a while since I read it though, but I do recall that passage on the savannah and how we're adapted to only a specific range of sensory input)

The subject of a "God" existing or not is one thing, but the subject of a "God" being a Christian one, Muslim one, etc. etc. etc. is pure idiocy and anyone who believes such nonsense is warped in the head.

I'd sort of agree with that, but warped is no the right word, lack of information would be more suitable.

There are many gods that are or have been claimed to exist. You believe in only one of them and (as is frequently said around these parts) once you understand why it is you reject those others gods you will understand why it is we reject yours.

Well, actually, I believe in all the gods. Check my introduction thread where I explain my position. Comparative mythology/religion is my own field of expertise, which is why I feel the GD is weak, or rather Dawkins analysis is, to be blunt (and please don't flame me for this, I'm only stating my opinion), ignorant.

There is usually only one authoritative set of scriptures for a given god/religion ... in the case of Christianity that is The Bible and any argument that you need to experience more than just reading the bible sails perilously into "No True Scotsman" fallacy waters.

The problem is, there shouldn't be any books to begin with. In most religions the writing down of anything regarding the nature of god or of spirituality is a sacred taboo.

So what you find is that these texts are not written by Oral teachers, the prophets or the priests, but by certain secular interests groups which seek to monopolize the "use of God" as a source of authority in society.

Jesus never wrote a word down, nor Muhammad, nor the Buddha. Neither did the Druids, the Brahmins, Zoroaster or the thousands of other religious teachers that have walked the earth.

The taboo on writing is one the most powerful taboo's withing a religious culture. (Immediate excommunication, or even death in some cases)

Personally I think he nailed it absolutely, 100% spot on and interestingly I note that it tends to be those with something to defend (those whose views/faiths Dawkins attacks that tend to take that stance).

Well that's your opinion. Fair enough, I just felt it was lightweight, it's a good book for the lay person, but I prefer a bit more detail.

If the Buy-bull is just a guide you need to explain that to all those god-damn Baptists, who claim it is scientific proof.

Look man, don't be lumping me in with those Americans lol.

Anyway, it's the fact that they are American which determines their idiotic beliefs. Even American atheists can't compare to their European counterparts. It's just a cultural thing, a poor education system and arrogance.

Sorry if I've offended any Americans, but it's true. It's because you've been uprooted as a people. Us in the Old World have thousands of years of tradition to draw on, we're just born into it. You could say that we have access to a richer, more diverse, meme pool

Anyway, don't leave me 5 posts to reply to all at once, and you repeated yourselves quite a number of times. Organize you're posts so that yas aren't asking me eachothers questions, it felt as if you were stepping on each others toes to give me a dig.