The God Delusion

[Samson]

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"

I see you already forgot what I said about this sentence……..”Depends on the subject/topic at hand”…Hence the reason I stated something as simple as “Oil Change”. If I would have said Doctor you would have had a point.
You are putting too much credit into religion, and I get that from your comment here: Religion is a too important aspect of human behavior to be dismissed in such a weak book as the GD.
You are treating it is if it was as complicated as Rocket Science, when it fact it is not.

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.

You are correct, there are many wonderful books out there that can teach and show us different examples of religion and faith from across the board. I’ve been alive long enough to read many books on the subject, as well as sharing as many as possible with my children over the years, and I did not see where Dawkins was lacking in comparison.

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)

I was using our senses to simply show that we can understand something simply by using them.

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

I would say pure ignorance would be better in this case.

[Anto Kennedy]

By 'guide' I thought you meant morals...since you were saying you weren't talking about God's actual existence. Ok...not moral guidance...what kind of 'guidance' are you speaking of then?

A spiritual guide.

I believe he explained spot on why it's a delusion. Because there's no evidence and because God himself is even more complex and improbable than the explanation he is supposed to provide.

Yeh I never got that reasoning, it just went way over my head.

God doesn't exist because God is improbable, God doesn't exist because God is complex (says Dawkins), therefore belief in a non-existing God is a delusion.

Is that it?

And this Definition of God I am speaking of is the same definition as Dawkins clearly defines him in the beginning of chapter Two, "The God Hypothesis" - and that is pretty much that God just = The Supernatural Creator of the Universe. So deistic Gods included too.

Who says God is "super" natural, why not wholly natural.

Well as I have said, his reasons above are that God (as Dawkins defines him in Chapter Two) lacks any evidence whatsoever and is highly improbable. So that makes God a delusion.

I really don't get it. God is improbable, and since "belief" in the improbable is a delusion, belief in God is a delusion?

That's piss poor reasoning. It's a weak arguement. That's why I feel the book is poor.

The point is not that he's saying that religions cause 'all the problems in the world'. But that religion itself does cause a lot of problems.

Any evidence for that statement?

Could religion solve a lot of problems too, or do we not look at both sides of the arguement anymore?

In the sense that if a lot of the horrible stuff in religious books are taken entirely literally and believed - this can lead to a lot of problems that wouldn't happen if religion wasn't there...

It would. It could be communism, it could be nationalism, it could be Freedom & Democracy inc., but people will buy into an ideology, wholly believe in it's tenents and start some "problems".

When 911 happens because a small group of Muslims think that in such an act they are going to go to a Martyr's Heaven and get 72 virgins for themselves

That isn't why 9/11 "happened". Most intelligent people (and by that I really mean people that specialize in geo-politics, Middle-Eastern history etc....which excludes me) would acknowledge other factors.

"Faith" in their literal, fundamentalist, highly dogmatic and zealous and absolutist interpretation of the Koran...and interpretation of their "God"

Could you elaborate on what this interpretation that caused 9/11 is?

Religion plays a big part.

Religion is all encompassing in society, so obviously it's going to have an involvement in events. That's what I was trying to say, religion is too important to be brushed off in such a weak book as the GD.

Well whether there can be evidence...or not... if there's no evidence then there's no reason to believe

Why is there no reason to believe in the absence of evidence?

so it is delusional to believe anyway completely irrationally

I don't understand what your trying to say, "believe anyway completely irrationally"....doesn't make sense.

in the sense it's believing in a 'false belief' by definition basically

What is a false belief?

And especially when such a "God" is highly improbable.

Is what you're trying to say this, "belief in God is especially delusional considering the existence of an infinite, immortal creative being, that created this universe (and maybe others), and to which all things return, is highly improbable."

Why does the improbability of this being existing make it less likely to reflect reality if you belief in the being?

And where did you get the idea that God is improbable from anyway? Did Dawkins just make it up? What has probability got to do with it, and what bookmakers drew up those odds?

That's why God is a delusion.

Did we just skip the whole coherent arguement thing-a-ma-jig and cut straight to the resolution, because I saw no clear reason in you're post to accept that statement.

YHWH is nothing more than a moon god, and not a very nice one at that.

LMAO, okay mate.

Where is the "supernatural?" What is its frame of reference? Where is it located? Define its properties.

I don't deal with morality, and I don't deal with the supernatural. All is natural, how could it be otherwise.

What is with the Euro-snobbery?

It's true though, the correct term for it is, "culturally inbred".

My Dad fought in WWII and pulled your Euro-asses out of the fire when you were trying to kill each other, which by the way, seems to be your biggest tradition.

The Irish were never in the fire. And it isn't technically euro-snobbery either, since all Africans and Asian likewise have long cultural traditions.

Americans make poor artists, poor writers etc. Too legalistic, not enough imagination. There's a reason why this peculiar blend of atheism started in America, and why the peculiar fundamental form of Christianity originated in the US.

You are putting too much credit into religion, and I get that from your comment here: Religion is a too important aspect of human behavior to be dismissed in such a weak book as the GD.

Well you should get that from my comment, because that's what I wrote, you understand what I want you to understand, it's called communication.

Anyway, your beef is with Evidence vs. Faith, he seems to think religion is responsible for a lot (not all) of the world's problems, meaning he gives religion a lot of credit in world & historical events.

I’ve been alive long enough to read many books on the subject, as well as sharing as many as possible with my children over the years, and I did not see where Dawkins was lacking in comparison.

Well I did.

I was using our senses to simply show that we can understand something simply by using them.

No we can't. If we see something we only see it. Understanding involves a lot more than sensory perception, it requires imagination (to fill in the gaps)

God could be considered a gap filler, an abstract image used in absence of any information regarding the time before the Big Bang.

The question you have to ask yourself though is, "would you rather have a gap filler for a question that will never be answered, or will you be happy with a void."

It's a trick question, the void is the gap filler

I would say pure ignorance would be better in this case.

O rly?


p.s. stop asking me questions on theology, I only wanted to comment on the GD as a book, I wasn't really interested in discussing it's contents to any great degree.

[Meatball]

Wow, if there is one thing that kills a debate, it's quote-wars. It turns into unintelligible nitpicking that nobody wants to read.

On topic, I love TGD, and it definitely changed my life, and my way of thinking about religion. I thought Dawkins raised a number of excellent points and addressed a wide selection of common arguments.

I don't think Dawkins needs to be a theology expert to argue against religion. In fact, I would say theology is completely irrelevent in this case as the goal was not to debunk Christianty or Islam, but to show how superstition and religion are simply not logical or valid as beliefs for a healthy thinker.

Dawkins is a smart man, and obviously more educated in the subject of sociology and anthropology than I am, as he held my attention without seeming out of his element. I think he is certainly familiar enough with it to address the audience that TGD intends to address.

[Edwardo Piet]

A spiritual guide.

Define spirtual then. How perhaps clarify how it can be a guide? And what kind of guide?

Yeh I never got that reasoning, it just went way over my head.

God doesn't exist because God is improbable, God doesn't exist because God is complex (says Dawkins), therefore belief in a non-existing God is a delusion.

Dawkins doesn't claim that God definitely doesn't exists. So he doesn't claim "God doesn't exist" in that sense. He claims God almost certainly doesn't exist because God is highly complex and improbable and lacks any evidence and it's therefore delusional to believe in him...for exactly the same reason(s) as it's delusional to believe that The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, despite the fact that there's no evidence of the FSM and the FSM is highly complex and improbable.

And yet, yes - Dawkins doesn't even claim that the FSM definitely doesn't exist because that would be a logical fallacy because you can't prove a negative. God being extremely improbable is enough for him to be a delusion - God doesn't have to 'definitely not exist' to be a delusion. Nor does the FSM - almost certainly does not exist exist, is enough.

Who says God is "super" natural, why not wholly natural.

Well he's supernatural in the sense that he can perform miracles and he himself is at least as miraculous as a miracle, becasue he is so complex and improbable - when he's defined as the creator of the universe without any explanation for his existence whatsoever.

And if God does not need an explanation for his existence as the role of the creator of the universe...then why on earth does the universe need him as an explanation for it? If God can be eternal why not the universe? And if there indeed...is a first cause - then why does it have to be a complex creator such as "God"? Why can it not simply be something more simple such as a "Big Bang" singularity, or whatever predated that, then?

I really don't get it. God is improbable, and since "belief" in the improbable is a delusion, belief in God is a delusion?

Yes. And the more improbable such a belief without evidence...I think arguably the more delusional.

That's piss poor reasoning. It's a weak arguement. That's why I feel the book is poor.

Well the Flying Spaghetti Monster is entirely without evidence, is highly complex and improbable. And personal absurdity is irrelevant for an objective matter such as it. So would you not consider belief in the FSM to be a delusion by that critera? (no evidence, higly complex and improbable).

Could religion solve a lot of problems too, or do we not look at both sides of the arguement anymore?

If people who would otherwise not give a shit, are motivitated by religion through fear or hope of reward, then I guess it can be a positive motivator in that sense, yes. But I don't think it's worth it considering the sheer ignorance of "Faith" (by definition I say, 'Faith' being "Belief without evidence", nothing more and nothing less - how do you define it?) and the evil it can cause because of such ignorance, and the ignorant and strong belief in such ignorant and; at times at least - backward opinions.

It would. It could be communism, it could be nationalism, it could be Freedom & Democracy inc., but people will buy into an ideology, wholly believe in it's tenents and start some "problems".

Yes. But I think the worst ideologies of all tend to be "Dogmas" and "Religion" tends to be one of the biggest and most widespread dogmas of all. And overall I think it's the biggest problem of any one "Dogma". Without religious "Faith" I don't see that there would be much of an equivalent that is that bad that would just 'pop up' or just 'be there instead' or whatever.

Could you elaborate on what this interpretation that caused 9/11 is?

A literal interpretation and having absolute faith in it meaning you get to go to a martyr's heaven and get 72 versions, that you are rightous in doing it, such faith and belief in your own righteousness being so strong as to drive you to carry out an act.

There's some info on the matter in TGD and Sam Harris has also spoke of this too.

I am yet to read "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Chrisian Nation by Harris, but certainly am planning to.

Religion is all encompassing in society, so obviously it's going to have an involvement in events. That's what I was trying to say, religion is too important to be brushed off in such a weak book as the GD.

Religion contains no evidence of God, the Afterlife, Miracles or anything supernatural whatsoever...what Dawkins disputes in TGD is the existence of God...so how I see it is that :The existence of God is too lacking in evidence, too complex and improbable...to not be brushed off by such a brilliant book as TGD.

That's my opinion yes...but you express your opinion I express mine

Why is there no reason to believe in the absence of evidence?

It's irrational to believe in God in the absence of evidence (On "Faith") just as it is to believe in the FSM in the absence of evidence ("On Faith")...or anything else. And the more improbable the thing lacking in evidence, arguably the more delusional I think.
what your trying to say, "believe anyway completely irrationally"....doesn't make sense.

What is a false belief?

A belief in something that there's no evidence of.

Why does the improbability of this being existing make it less likely to reflect reality if you belief in the being?

Because it's less likely to reflect reality; because the improbability of the being existing means that it's less likely to exist. Same things, different words right? That's a tautology.

EvF

[Anto Kennedy]

Wow, if there is one thing that kills a debate, it's quote-wars. It turns into unintelligible nitpicking that nobody wants to read.

On topic, I love TGD, and it definitely changed my life, and my way of thinking about religion. I thought Dawkins raised a number of excellent points and addressed a wide selection of common arguments.

I don't think Dawkins needs to be a theology expert to argue against religion. In fact, I would say theology is completely irrelevent in this case as the goal was not to debunk Christianty or Islam, but to show how superstition and religion are simply not logical or valid as beliefs for a healthy thinker.

Dawkins is a smart man, and obviously more educated in the subject of sociology and anthropology than I am, as he held my attention without seeming out of his element. I think he is certainly familiar enough with it to address the audience that TGD intends to address.

Well that is the key, it is written for an especially wide audience, and lacks in detail because of it. As i said, it's an excellent read for the layman, but the next step for Dawkins, if he is to really challenge the stranglehold religion has on the minds of the public, is to hold nothing back and go all out.

---

Define spirtual then. How perhaps clarify how it can be a guide? And what kind of guide?

Spirit is Will. The Holy Spirit is the Holy Will. The Will of Allah is the Spirit of Allah.

Spirit is the drive, the instinct, the creative force when referring to the Holy Spirit.

As a spiritual guide these texts, almost universally guide the reader, or the initiate in certain cases, towards controlling the base animal spirit, the egotistical mental spirit, and allowing the selfless, creative spirit to be the primary force within a person's character.

Off Topic, as the previous poster said, this is turning into an orgy of quotation nit-picking.

I'm going to be on this forum for a while, so we've got plenty of time to share our views in appropriate topics. Let's not blow our loads, so to speak, in what is my virgin forum experience.

Anyways, about the improbability's again, I just don't get it, you're repeating yourself and I'm not getting any new information.

Look I don't care if Dawkins thinks belief in God is a delusion, so stop trying to forward his views, I've got the book sitting in my library, I can read that at anytime.

Well he's supernatural in the sense that he can perform miracles and he himself is at least as miraculous as a miracle, becasue he is so complex and improbable

What do you base these two statements on? How do you know God "performs" miracle, and how do you know he is so complex and improbable. The opposite is more likely, that God is simple (well, that's what every religion describes God as being), but Dawkins probably knows better)

then why on earth does the universe need him as an explanation for it?

Who said it did?

If God can be eternal why not the universe?

Well, it began, so it hasn't been around for ever.

And if there indeed...is a first cause - then why does it have to be a complex creator such as "God"? Why can it not simply be something more simple such as a "Big Bang" singularity, or whatever predated that, then?

Seriously, what is so complex about God? Do you even know what most people mean when they refer to God?

And as for the Big Bang, that's a part of theistic cosmology. It's what happened prior to the singularity which seperates theists and non-theists.

Theists believe that in the beginning there was nothing, and this nothingness negated (0x0=1) itself unleashing the Holy Spirit, the Big Bang, a mammoth creative force which set things in motion. The Son of God, the Word, the Logos, then is the scaffolding with which this Holy Spirit acts within. The Logos is the Laws of physics.

And God the Father, well no one knows anything about that one. God the Father is Love. And we have no idea what the fuck love is, let alone setting about trying to prove it's existence.

Now we're going way off-topic so I won't go into any detail here, if you have any questions and really want to discuss a specific issue then start a new thread.

Yes. And the more improbable such a belief without evidence...I think arguably the more delusional.

That definition of delusion just removes the meaning of the word delusion. If that is what a delusion is, belief in an improbable, event, outcome, cause or being, then everyone that plays the lottery is delusional, everyone that believed man could walk on the moon was delusional, everyone that believed that man could even maintain controlled flight for more than 30 seconds was delusional.

That's a weak arguement and a misuse of the word delusion.

Well the Flying Spaghetti Monster is entirely without evidence, is highly complex and improbable. And personal absurdity is irrelevant for an objective matter such as it. So would you not consider belief in the FSM to be a delusion by that critera? (no evidence, higly complex and improbable).

But the FSM exists. Didn't you know that? (BTW, I'm not being sarcastic either)

I'm out, we're off topic and I really couldn't give a shit anymore. I thought the book was poor, that's it, that's all I wanted to say in this topic.

[Samson]

Well you should get that from my comment, because that's what I wrote, you understand what I want you to understand, it's called communication.

You missed the point on this one. Now I understand why you didn’t understand too much of the God Delusion.

No we can't. If we see something we only see it. Understanding involves a lot more than sensory perception, it requires imagination (to fill in the gaps)

God could be considered a gap filler, an abstract image used in absence of any information regarding the time before the Big Bang.

The question you have to ask yourself though is, "would you rather have a gap filler for a question that will never be answered, or will you be happy with a void."
It's a trick question, the void is the gap filler

Umm, yes we can…It’s not just seeing, it’s all the above involved, which I stated all senses and not just seeing.

If I “See” a round circle object on the ground, which looks dimpled and has a brownish red color to it and comes pretty close to a watermelon’s size but not shape;

And I “Touch” it, and it feels dimpled, flexible and a bit tough;

In which I put my tongue to it and “Taste” it, but it has no sweet taste, but a type of bitter and flexible feeling;

And shake it to “Hear” if anything is inside it, but it’s hallow on the inside…

And “Smell” it to find out its odor, which is a little strong but not in a horrific way;


Last but not least, I look around this objects surroundings and “See” it’s environment to find a hard long surface from which I’m standing on, with lines and at each end of the hard surface is two pillars with a see through square backing at the top of each and a round circle sticking out of each square a little bigger than what I found on the ground, but with a webbed white cloth hanging from the round hollow object……..

Just with my senses involved, can you guess what the round object I found on the ground is?


All 5 senses involved and without any void feeling gap.....Why?? Because I will continue to research and test my hypothesis until proven.....Voids are filled with discovery of evidence, not guessing games….Religion does a well enough job of that all on it’s on.

[Kyuuketsuki]

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.

I'll stick with my first opinion if it's all the same thanks.

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.

So you study fairy tales ... what do you want? A medal? Again I think Dawkins nailed it in "The God Delusion" and I say that as a recovering ex-Catholic.

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.

That's all well and good but the fact is that billions of humans today DO seem to partly or wholly base their belief on those written scriptures.

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.

You may well be right, I've long thought that the top dogs in religions are probably as lacking in religious belief as I am but again you're still dealing with a lot of ordinary people who do believe those scriptures and can be coerced to do many things in the name of them.

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.

I see no reason to believe Jesus ever existed, Mohammed was apparently a paedophile and to be brutally honest I don't care much about the rest.

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

By the written communication profligate Catholic Church?

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.

Well as long as we're just talking opinion ...

BTW, it's awfully difficult to tell who you are addressing in your relies ... can I ask that you try to show who it is your talking to (much as I have)?

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Wow, if there is one thing that kills a debate, it's quote-wars. It turns into unintelligible nitpicking that nobody wants to read.

Ok, fair enough. I'll just respond to your whole post outright then:

God is highly complex and improbable for the reasons Dawkins gives in TGD. My point is that Dawkins doesn't at all need to read up on religion to reject the existence of God, which is what the TGD is about. The reasons Dawkins gives for why God is highly complex and improbable and why 'There almost certainly is no God' doesn't remotely require any reading up on religion...it rejects all Gods as Dawkins defines God(s), that being 'the Creator of the universe'. This would also include deistic Gods, non-personal Gods by this definition, Gods that don't have any holy books or texts. The theistic God is rejected by Dawkins for exactly the same reason as the deistic God is. The theistic God is just extra improbable because of the added complexity of it also being a personal God and being capable of being able to 'intervene', etc.

Dawkins doesn't need to read up on religion to reject the existence of this definition of God (how he defines it), any more than he has to read up on the FSM to reject the FSM.

You say that you're not being sarcastic when you say the FSM exists........eh??? Surely that's sarcasm though?

EvF

[Tabby]

*all the above*

---

---

By 'guide' I thought you meant morals...since you were saying you weren't talking about God's actual existence. Ok...not moral guidance...what kind of 'guidance' are you speaking of then?

A spiritual guide.

I believe he explained spot on why it's a delusion. Because there's no evidence and because God himself is even more complex and improbable than the explanation he is supposed to provide.

Yeh I never got that reasoning, it just went way over my head.

God doesn't exist because God is improbable, God doesn't exist because God is complex (says Dawkins), therefore belief in a non-existing God is a delusion.

Is that it?

And this Definition of God I am speaking of is the same definition as Dawkins clearly defines him in the beginning of chapter Two, "The God Hypothesis" - and that is pretty much that God just = The Supernatural Creator of the Universe. So deistic Gods included too.

Who says God is "super" natural, why not wholly natural.

Well as I have said, his reasons above are that God (as Dawkins defines him in Chapter Two) lacks any evidence whatsoever and is highly improbable. So that makes God a delusion.

I really don't get it. God is improbable, and since "belief" in the improbable is a delusion, belief in God is a delusion?

That's piss poor reasoning. It's a weak arguement. That's why I feel the book is poor.

The point is not that he's saying that religions cause 'all the problems in the world'. But that religion itself does cause a lot of problems.

Any evidence for that statement?

Could religion solve a lot of problems too, or do we not look at both sides of the arguement anymore?

In the sense that if a lot of the horrible stuff in religious books are taken entirely literally and believed - this can lead to a lot of problems that wouldn't happen if religion wasn't there...

It would. It could be communism, it could be nationalism, it could be Freedom & Democracy inc., but people will buy into an ideology, wholly believe in it's tenents and start some "problems".

When 911 happens because a small group of Muslims think that in such an act they are going to go to a Martyr's Heaven and get 72 virgins for themselves

That isn't why 9/11 "happened". Most intelligent people (and by that I really mean people that specialize in geo-politics, Middle-Eastern history etc....which excludes me) would acknowledge other factors.

"Faith" in their literal, fundamentalist, highly dogmatic and zealous and absolutist interpretation of the Koran...and interpretation of their "God"

Could you elaborate on what this interpretation that caused 9/11 is?

Religion plays a big part.

Religion is all encompassing in society, so obviously it's going to have an involvement in events. That's what I was trying to say, religion is too important to be brushed off in such a weak book as the GD.

Well whether there can be evidence...or not... if there's no evidence then there's no reason to believe

Why is there no reason to believe in the absence of evidence?

so it is delusional to believe anyway completely irrationally

I don't understand what your trying to say, "believe anyway completely irrationally"....doesn't make sense.

in the sense it's believing in a 'false belief' by definition basically

What is a false belief?

And especially when such a "God" is highly improbable.

Is what you're trying to say this, "belief in God is especially delusional considering the existence of an infinite, immortal creative being, that created this universe (and maybe others), and to which all things return, is highly improbable."

Why does the improbability of this being existing make it less likely to reflect reality if you belief in the being?

And where did you get the idea that God is improbable from anyway? Did Dawkins just make it up? What has probability got to do with it, and what bookmakers drew up those odds?

That's why God is a delusion.

Did we just skip the whole coherent arguement thing-a-ma-jig and cut straight to the resolution, because I saw no clear reason in you're post to accept that statement.

YHWH is nothing more than a moon god, and not a very nice one at that.

LMAO, okay mate.

Where is the "supernatural?" What is its frame of reference? Where is it located? Define its properties.

I don't deal with morality, and I don't deal with the supernatural. All is natural, how could it be otherwise.

What is with the Euro-snobbery?

It's true though, the correct term for it is, "culturally inbred".

My Dad fought in WWII and pulled your Euro-asses out of the fire when you were trying to kill each other, which by the way, seems to be your biggest tradition.

The Irish were never in the fire. And it isn't technically euro-snobbery either, since all Africans and Asian likewise have long cultural traditions.

Americans make poor artists, poor writers etc. Too legalistic, not enough imagination. There's a reason why this peculiar blend of atheism started in America, and why the peculiar fundamental form of Christianity originated in the US.

You are putting too much credit into religion, and I get that from your comment here: Religion is a too important aspect of human behavior to be dismissed in such a weak book as the GD.

Well you should get that from my comment, because that's what I wrote, you understand what I want you to understand, it's called communication.

Anyway, your beef is with Evidence vs. Faith, he seems to think religion is responsible for a lot (not all) of the world's problems, meaning he gives religion a lot of credit in world & historical events.

I’ve been alive long enough to read many books on the subject, as well as sharing as many as possible with my children over the years, and I did not see where Dawkins was lacking in comparison.

Well I did.

I was using our senses to simply show that we can understand something simply by using them.

No we can't. If we see something we only see it. Understanding involves a lot more than sensory perception, it requires imagination (to fill in the gaps)

God could be considered a gap filler, an abstract image used in absence of any information regarding the time before the Big Bang.

The question you have to ask yourself though is, "would you rather have a gap filler for a question that will never be answered, or will you be happy with a void."

It's a trick question, the void is the gap filler

I would say pure ignorance would be better in this case.

O rly?


p.s. stop asking me questions on theology, I only wanted to comment on the GD as a book, I wasn't really interested in discussing it's contents to any great degree.

---

*p.s. quote above*[Now hidden because of its very large size and small response in comparison - EvF]
Then why ARE you discussing its' contents to a great degree?

And why worry so much about god anyways? If you understand that there is no god, then stop worrying--it's a huge relief, believe me.

---

@ Anto Kennedy

I don't think that you can just 'brush off religion' with one book anyways--there are many atheist books out there, and atheism is on the rise. I think that in the future, religion will inevitable be diminished.

Edit By EvF: OP, I edited this post to hide the quote because it's so incredibly massive and the response to it underneath is so tiny in comparison. Please try and not do such small replies to such massive quotes, thx - EvF

[LEDO]

God doesn't exist because there is no place for God to exist. The existance of God would also violate the second law of thermodynamics.