The God Delusion

[Anto Kennedy]

Dawkins doesn't need to read the bible to dismiss "God" anymore than he has to read the FSM Gospel to Dismiss the FSM, when you're talking on the matter of existence and the actual evidence for such a thing (or lack thereof ) A book is not evidence of the supernatural. Whether it's the FSM Gospel or the Bible.

EvF

The books, the many books, are not the evidence, but the guide.

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.

Well anyway, I'm not getting involved in the Is there Isn't there debate, waste of time.

I understand Dawkins' mission, and I support him in it, but he is over reaching himself. It's a sad case of delusional grandeur.

BTW, he does need to read the Bible and other Holy Books to first define God, before dismissing the existence thereof.

[chatpilot]

I think anyone that is going to challenge the theist should know what he is challenging.If you are going to criticize the bible and its authenticity or question its divine origin you should at least read it so that you are well informed about what it is you are debating against.I personally read the bible in its entirety 4 times and feel that as an atheist that knowledge has helped me greatly to debate the theists on their own turf using their own materials.Although as an atheist I dont give the bible any validity as evidence for the existence of God or a guide to divine truth.To me it's just another book written and inspired by the fertile imagination of man.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

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".

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.

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

[Samson]

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". I don't have to read the Bible (Even though I have time and time again and still go back to it every now and then), to simply ask someone who follows it or believes in a god, is he/she/it real and if so, please show me or help me understand etc. etc.

Dawkins has had more than enough years under his belt to know the difference and hear the same rhetorical questions and wall hiding ignorance to have made up his mind and look for answers involved from the subject of "God".

I don't have to be a mechanic to know how to change my oil.....They may do it faster, and better in the beginning, but over time that oil change will still be an oil change and statistics will show that I will catch up to speed over time. (Unless I'm a complete moron.....)...

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.....And again, it depends on the subject at hand...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.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but Dawkins has stated time and time again that he is not saying "Their cannot be a God".....He's only saying that the possibilities of one has no evidence to back it up...And that I agree with...

[Edwardo Piet]

In fact he states in Chapter two of the book (The God Hypothesis) that he is denying all Gods; and that includes deistic Gods. He doesn't need a book to deny theistic Gods because those books are not evidence, he dismisses them for the same reasons as he dismisses the deistic God. Their extra absurdities within the texts, if anything - simply make the theistic Gods more improbable than the deistic ones. They're certainly not any less improbable; because holy books are not evidence. The Bible is not evidence for God any more than the FSM Gospel is evidence for the FSM by exactly the same criteria.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

Anyway, if you want to understand something, you have to study it. Dawkins hasn't and clearly doesn't know what he doesn't believe in.

If you criticize a film without even watching it, you're only awareness of the film coming from the word of mouth of friends and two-bit film critics in your local paper, you're just wasting you're breath.

On the film yes that's true and I have been highly critical of atheists who have slammed films like "The Passion Of The Christ" without going to see it ... I did (courtesy of a local church seeking converts) and I thought it was pretty crap.

The issue of the claimed existence of a god or gods however is an entirley different matter for a number of reasons:

• 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.
  
• 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.
  
• If a god really does exist and affects our world in various miraculous ways there would be evidence even if we couldn't identify the causative agent ... our resident long term theist, Frodo, disagrees with this though he has failed to give a decent argument to support his view that the actions of deity are somehow excepted from the normal rules of analysis so far.

Religion is a too important aspect of human behaviour to be dismissed in such a weak book as the GD.

Why?

Dawkins needs to step up his game if he is to achieve his set objectives, otherwise it's a fail.

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).

Kyu

[LEDO]

Anton,

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. There are many people who have studied the Bible, became ministers, and then became atheists. The list is long, and many are atheist "leaders." I became an atheist as an attempt to study the Bible. Dawkins doesn't need to study "a talking snake" to know it is bullshit.

[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.

[Edwardo Piet]

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

He provides his reasons for why God is a delusion,

Which are poor, in my opinion.

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. How are those reasons poor reasons for why God is a delusion as he is defining him?

Humans cause problems, humans fix problems, humans kill, humans save.

Dawkins doesn't deny this of course...

Don't take personal responsibility away from historical events.

...and Dawkins didn't portray that view either.

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 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. 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...

...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 because their whole belief is being driven by the fact that they believe that what they're doing is righteous because of their extremely strong religious "Faith" in their literal, fundamentalist, highly dogmatic and zealous and absolutist interpretation of the Koran...and interpretation of their "God"...you can't say that that is not a religious matter or that religion hasn't had any effect on such horrors such as that...can you? Religion plays a big part. Dawkins never said it's the cause of 'all the world's problems'.

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.

Well whether there can be evidence...or not... if there's no evidence then there's no reason to believe he exists so it is delusional to believe anyway completely irrationally (in the sense it's believing in a 'false belief' by definition basically). And especially when such a "God" is highly improbable. That's why God is a delusion.

EvF

[LEDO]

Anto,

I have studied the Bible and I am coming out with my second book on the matter. YHWH is nothing more than a moon god, and not a very nice one at that. Jesus is solar.

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

What is with the Euro-snobbery?

My Mennonite Swiss ancestors left Europe because it was filled with intolerant assholes.

My Spanish ancestors left because Europe was filled with intolerant fascists.

My German ancestors left because they didn't want to kill frogs for the Kaiser.

My Dutch ancestor left because she was unwed and got knocked up.

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.