Dad links son's suicide to 'The God Delusion'

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

And C. S. Lewis made some impressive philosophical statements

Please name name two and explain what you find impressive about them..

Imo, Dawkins is an amazing writer...

Are you using 'amazing' the way people tend to use "awesome"? IE not in their actual meaning,but to mean "I quite like"?


Did I misunderstand or did you just compare Plato and Richard Dawkins? Sorry to be a noodge,but I think there are couple basic differences: Plato was a great philosopher, but not a scientist..Richard Dawkins is a scientist,not a philosopher. Plato was an original thinker.Dawkins writes popular books sythesising the thoughts of others.He has nothing original to say.


If you really want to read an amazing atheist writer, read Bertrand Russell. His essay "Why I am not A Christian" is terrific. Should be available at any decent library.

Why I Am Not a Christian is an essay by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell hailed by The Independent as "devastating in its use of cold logic",[1] and listed in the New York Public Library's list of the most influential books of the 20th century.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_I_Am_Not_a_Christian

[leo-rcc]

I'm reading Percy Bysshe Shelly's "The necessity of Atheism" published in 1811 and expanded and republished in 1813 at the moment. He started out as Atheist and later became what one would describe now as Pantheist. So far (I've only gotten a few pages in) he's impressed me more than Dawkins did.

[Edwardo Piet]

I didn't compare Dawkins to Plato or any other philosophers Padriac...I didn't even mention him being original did I? I just said he's a great writer, I admire his explanatory power, I think he's really good at getting the point across. He's my favourite writer, he gives a lot of clarity to me.

I was using amazing in the sense that 'awesome' is often used these days, yes...although....I have never read anything where the points are expressed with such clarity, as Dawkins does. IMO he's a truly brilliant writer.

As for how TGD changed my life despite me already being an atheist before hand, and how I'd say it changed my life more than any other one thing - that's totally true.

EvF

[fr0d0]

So TGD changed your life but not into atheism. How so then?

[Edwardo Piet]

It made me a more logical and rational person over all, and made me care about the effect religion has...made me interested in the subject, got me more interested in nature in general again....got me onto these forums...and I fucking love it here.

Got me to change from gnosticism or wishy washy agnostism to the logical de facto agnostic atheism I hold now...at the same time as caring about the matter and being a so-called 'millitant atheist'.

It basically completely changed the way I view life, and my life overall...changed the whole way I approach life really.

EvF

[Violet]

And C. S. Lewis made some impressive philosophical statements

Please name name two and explain what you find impressive about them..

Imo, Dawkins is an amazing writer...

Are you using 'amazing' the way people tend to use "awesome"? IE not in their actual meaning,but to mean "I quite like"?


Did I misunderstand or did you just compare Plato and Richard Dawkins? Sorry to be a noodge,but I think there are couple basic differences: Plato was a great philosopher, but not a scientist..Richard Dawkins is a scientist,not a philosopher. Plato was an original thinker.Dawkins writes popular books sythesising the thoughts of others.He has nothing original to say.


If you really want to read an amazing atheist writer, read Bertrand Russell. His essay "Why I am not A Christian" is terrific. Should be available at any decent library.

Why I Am Not a Christian is an essay by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell hailed by The Independent as "devastating in its use of cold logic",[1] and listed in the New York Public Library's list of the most influential books of the 20th century.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_I_Am_Not_a_Christian

Sure for the two: If you see through everything, you see nothing at all. That statement is impressive because it applies pure simplicity to skepticism. Where if you are completely skeptical of everything: you can be sure of nothing, nothing is solid, nothing is fact. While he used that to defend his moronic religion, i used it to help me in the personal establishment of 1 equaling 1. Together with Plato, Lewis, and my own theorizing, i am able to solidify at least that as fact.

And a second one, rather longer: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

The above one i apply to an 'unconditionally all-loving god' to help me prove that such a thing cannot exist. I also use it as a mirror into what a tyrant thinks, together with all i have read from Plato's Republic. Simple enough, i think. If you need any more interesting quotes from him, there is a decent page on quotes from him at http://www.quotationspage.com/search.php...&C=lindsly Although one does not get to experience the style with which Lewis makes his points by simply reading some of his quotes.

A particularly interesting third quote, however, would come from this: "Do not let us mistake necessary evils for good.". That is possibly the wisest thing the Christian ever said


As to dawkins, i do indeed mean to make clear that i find his writing fascinating. He has a strong and unique voice, a creative style, and he makes excellent points. His points may not be unique, they are however: well summarized from others. Since when did someone need to be unique to be amazing?

But i have heard of Bertrand Russel, and i will check out his essay. It sounds interesting from the title and thank you for the link.

[Godlesspanther]

I did not read all the pages in-between but I do question the original story. I think it's a pile of World Net Daily. Yes, that is the source of the story.

From the "news" story:

"After Jesse's death, Keith Kilgore learned of the book assignment from two of his son's friends and a relative. He searched Jesse's room and found the book under the mattress with his son's bookmark on the last page.

A WND message seeking a comment from Dawkins or his publisher was not returned today."

This is one of numerous passages that make this tale smell like World Net Daily.

One can also determine the level of journalistic integrity of a publication by the advertisements in it. World Net Daily makes available to those so inclined to such gullibility -- a device that "generates free electricity," another contraption that will give you that flat stomach "without needing to exercise," gold coins that are "better than bullion," and a variety of books that are obviously a crock of World Net daily.

This is such a bunch of World Net Daily that one would probably have to stoop to quoting Bill O'Reilley to back up their claims.

[Amphora]

Anyway...obviously if you don't believe in God then you can't hate God. And my point is about how I didn't think it was being a 'good Christian' to blame God..because this is not what God (as in the Chistian God...capital 'G' as you say) wants...? He wants you to love him back (or...worship him?) as he 'loves you'?

So I meant that it went against Christian teaching? Supposedly? I'm not talking about what Christians practice...obviously many of them 'do it wrong' - because it's practically a fucking impossible task.

And futile and pointless of course...because God doesn't exist (and nor do any other 'gods').

EvF

I agree god doesn't exist, and therefore we don't have to blame him/her.

I blame myself for my misfortunes.

Amp