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

[josef rosenkranz]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...geId=81459

A New York man is linking the suicide of his 22-year-old son, a military veteran who had bright prospects in college, to the anti-Christian book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins after a college professor challenged the son to read it.

"Three people told us he had taken a biology class and was doing well in it, but other students and the professor were really challenging my son, his faith. They didn't like him as a Republican, as a Christian, and as a conservative who believed in intelligent design," the grief-stricken father, Keith Kilgore, told WND about his son, Jesse.

"This professor either assigned him to read or challenged him to read a book, 'The God Delusion,' by Richard Dawkins," he said.

Jesse Kilgore committed suicide in October by walking into the woods near his New York home and shooting himself. Keith Kilgore said he was shocked because he believed his son was grounded in Christianity, had blogged against abortion and for family values, and boasted he'd been debating for years.

This is of course a tragedy, anyone will agree. But it shows again how theists completely miss the point on atheism.

Yes, that is a tragedy. I feel sorry for the family.

Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" was tackled by Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor.

Bill O'Reilly, "You can't prove Jesus Christ wasn't God."
Richard Dawkins, "That's correct, but you cannot prove to me Thor and Zeus were not gods."

Richard Dawkins doesn't realize that he was "set-up" by Bill O'Reilly on that question. Dawkins shot himself in the foot when he replied to O'Reilly. Because that means Dawkins cannot disprove any God in any manner. So, why write a book on something that cannot be disproved? Opinions are not fact.

Dawkins claims, "Lack of evidence leans towards there being no god."
However, once again, Dawkins is not using his tiny brain. The only way the final result can be "Lack of evidence" is when every option has been thoroughly examined. Has anyone in human history been capable of exploring the entire Universe?


Secondly, Richard Dawkins is a Biologist not a Psychiatrist. He was asked to prove God is a delusion, and he couldn't. What's up with that? It sounds like Mr. Dawkins suckered a million people into buying his book. It's sound a bit crazy to write a book called 'The God Delusion' if he cannot prove God is a delusion. That is a delusion in itself.

You are right to believe that O"Reilly didn't get the right answer from Richard Dawkins because his Darwinistic method of disproving God does not give a direct answer to the question put by O'Reilly.
The direct and simple answer is that God is a creation of man motivated by a string of clearly provable causes, the main of them being the help he gets from this belief in his dayly struggle for survival.
Being a creation of man, God can not reside in any place than in the mind of the person who is thinking of him.
That does answer also to the question which each religious person sees as a blasphemy, namely:"WHO CREATED GOD?" to which religion has no positive answer.
Science of nature, is by no means, able to totally disprove the existence of God ,by the very simple fact that Man being a link in the evolutionary chain of life on earth has not yet the answer to all problems of the Universe.His knowledge of Nature is therefore limited to the level of his momentarily physical and mental development.
Would Man be in possession of all answers he would be himself God,which he is not because God does not exist.
The inexistence of God makes the O'Reilly question irrelevant.
The existence of Jesus is sustained by the Gospel which is also a creation of man. The appearance of Christianity is a complex phenomenon explicable by a lot of causes of historical,social,economical and theological reasons all
of them provable by a series of writings of the history of 300 years since the appearance of Jesus in ancient Judeea till it's political acceptance by the emperor Constantinus.
Atheism does not mean to despise religion or religious people but to convince people of the truth of reason against the irrational belief in God.

[Edwardo Piet]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...geId=81459

A New York man is linking the suicide of his 22-year-old son, a military veteran who had bright prospects in college, to the anti-Christian book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins after a college professor challenged the son to read it.

"Three people told us he had taken a biology class and was doing well in it, but other students and the professor were really challenging my son, his faith. They didn't like him as a Republican, as a Christian, and as a conservative who believed in intelligent design," the grief-stricken father, Keith Kilgore, told WND about his son, Jesse.

"This professor either assigned him to read or challenged him to read a book, 'The God Delusion,' by Richard Dawkins," he said.

Jesse Kilgore committed suicide in October by walking into the woods near his New York home and shooting himself. Keith Kilgore said he was shocked because he believed his son was grounded in Christianity, had blogged against abortion and for family values, and boasted he'd been debating for years.

This is of course a tragedy, anyone will agree. But it shows again how theists completely miss the point on atheism.

Yes, that is a tragedy. I feel sorry for the family.

Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" was tackled by Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor.

Bill O'Reilly, "You can't prove Jesus Christ wasn't God."
Richard Dawkins, "That's correct, but you cannot prove to me Thor and Zeus were not gods."

Richard Dawkins doesn't realize that he was "set-up" by Bill O'Reilly on that question. Dawkins shot himself in the foot when he replied to O'Reilly. Because that means Dawkins cannot disprove any God in any manner. So, why write a book on something that cannot be disproved? Opinions are not fact.

Dawkins claims, "Lack of evidence leans towards there being no god."
However, once again, Dawkins is not using his tiny brain. The only way the final result can be "Lack of evidence" is when every option has been thoroughly examined. Has anyone in human history been capable of exploring the entire Universe?


Secondly, Richard Dawkins is a Biologist not a Psychiatrist. He was asked to prove God is a delusion, and he couldn't. What's up with that? It sounds like Mr. Dawkins suckered a million people into buying his book. It's sound a bit crazy to write a book called 'The God Delusion' if he cannot prove God is a delusion. That is a delusion in itself.

You are right to believe that O"Reilly didn't get the right answer from Richard Dawkins because his Darwinistic method of disproving God does not give a direct answer to the question put by O'Reilly.
The direct and simple answer is that God is a creation of man motivated by a string of clearly provable causes, the main of them being the help he gets from this belief in his dayly struggle for survival.
Being a creation of man, God can not reside in any place than in the mind of the person who is thinking of him.
That does answer also to the question which each religious person sees as a blasphemy, namely:"WHO CREATED GOD?" to which religion has no positive answer.
Science of nature, is by no means, able to totally disprove the existence of God ,by the very simple fact that Man being a link in the evolutionary chain of life on earth has not yet the answer to all problems of the Universe.His knowledge of Nature is therefore limited to the level of his momentarily physical and mental development.
Would Man be in possession of all answers he would be himself God,which he is not because God does not exist.
The inexistence of God makes the O'Reilly question irrelevant.
The existence of Jesus is sustained by the Gospel which is also a creation of man. The appearance of Christianity is a complex phenomenon explicable by a lot of causes of historical,social,economical and theological reasons all
of them provable by a series of writings of the history of 300 years since the appearance of Jesus in ancient Judeea till it's political acceptance by the emperor Constantinus.
Atheism does not mean to despise religion or religious people but to convince people of the truth of reason against the irrational belief in God.

But that doesn't disprove God anymore than the almost certain disprove that Dawkins gives in TGD. Just how there can be ZERO evidence and God can be EXTREMELY improbable and complex and STILL not be completely disproved. God can look so OBVIOUSLY man made but it still doesn't disprove him. He can look totally man-made and still have not been man made. And still exist. He's merely, lets say, almost infinitely improbable. Just as with Dawkins solution. Which is that 1. There is no evidence of God. 2. God is so extremely complex and improbable. The universe is extremely fine tuned but any God capable of creating such a complex and improbable fine tuned universe would therefore have to be EVEN MORE complex, improbable and fine-tuned.
Its a massive solution. I'd say, its less obvious, but an even stronger argument than the one you give. Such a MASSIVE improbability of God's existence arguably makes God more improbable than the merely obvious fact that God is man-made. You can have all the evidence that it appears man invented God. But I don't think it directly attacks the issue. because there's no evidence of any God to disprove in the first place. You can prove that man invented the word "God". And the texts. But you cannot address the supernatural issue itself this way. Not as satisfactory as Dawkins' argument atleast. In my opinion. Since the fact that there is both ZERO supporting evidence that supports God and the fact that he is MASSIVELY complex and fine-tuned. And would have to be even more complex fine-tuning and improbable than the constants of the universe - because he is supposed to have created them...
I think thats more of a massively powerful argument than yours. That's my opinion anyway. I certainly don't think Dawkins' argument is weak. I think its incredibly strong.
And I even more strongly, certainly think that Dawkins argument DOES address the issue in question.
I think that the fact that "Who created God?" brings about an inescapable regress from which God cannot escape because he always must have come from somewhere. I think that is a stronger point of the impossibility of the supernatural because it goes against natural law for God to exist. Than the fact that God was man made. Although I believe he obviously was. I think the inescapable infinite regress is a stronger answer to the question.

[Eilonnwy]

This whole thing makes me sick. Obviously this story is a tragedy, and to see it used as a way to attack atheism is even more repulsive.

And more importantly, despite what the father says, without a lack of a suicide note you cannot claim what caused the boy to commit suicide. There are a lot of things that go into the decision to commit suicide. I highly doubt reading a book did it. There had to have been some serious problems there to begin with for the book to have any influence that severe.

[Edwardo Piet]

There had to have been some serious problems there to begin with for the book to have any influence that severe.

Very true indeed.

[CoxRox]

Psalm 23 - may I ask you why you believe in the God of the Bible, and not Odin for instance?

[Edwardo Piet]

Indeed. Why Psalm? Why not Zeus either?
We don't need agnostics about Zeus or Odin. And I Indeed don't think we do about God either. I mean you could say an agnostic atheist if you want to be very scientific about it. But why would Yahweh for instance be any more believable than Zeus or Odin?

[CoxRox]

I ask Psalm this because it is interesting to see why people believe in 'their' God. I 'believe' (well I have lots of doubts) in the God of the bible, not because I have any evidence that can be measured in a scientific way, but based on things like detecting design in nature (inference for design), the impact that the Bible has had on me when I've read it - it has the 'ring of truth' to me. Maybe the biggest reason is that I want it to be true. I am questioning my 'faith' at the minute. What 'evidence' does Psalm23 have to believe, if 'evidence' is that important?

[Edwardo Piet]

Well fine by me. But you don't believe there is evidence of God right as you just said? You don't believe evidence is the way to confirm God? But then you say that nature in design is your reason. So don't you consider that to be evidence? If you do then lets hope you have a better understanding of evolution after reading TBW maybe you won't think so then. Maybe you still will. I dunno.
But I certainly think that believing something because you want it to be true isn't a good reason if thats one of your reasons. If I want to believe I've won the lottery would that be a good reason to believe that I have?
There is of course a difference between a 'belief' and a 'hope'. If I hope that I'll win the lottery for instance. That's different to believing that I'm actually going to win it.
On the other hand, its very good of you to be so open to information.

[CoxRox]

Well fine by me. But you don't believe there is evidence of God right as you just said? You don't believe evidence is the way to confirm God? But then you say that nature in design is your reason. So don't you consider that to be evidence? If you do then lets hope you have a better understanding of evolution after reading TBW maybe you won't think so then. Maybe you still will. I dunno.
But I certainly think that believing something because you want it to be true isn't a good reason if thats one of your reasons. If I want to believe I've won the lottery would that be a good reason to believe that I have?
There is of course a difference between a 'belief' and a 'hope'. If I hope that I'll win the lottery for instance. That's different to believing that I'm actually going to win it.
On the other hand, its very good of you to be so open to information.

I regard life, the universe etc as real evidence of a Creator. I have no problem with that, but I can see that this won't be accepted as evidence by most of you guys. I have no evidence for the Bible, Jesus etc- which is why my faith is very shaky. I wouldn't be looking into all this if I just wanted to believe it because it sounds good, or whatever. I am prepared to 'lose it' if it turns out to be a delusion. If God is real, He'll hopefully ensure I don't lose my faith in Him. The onus is on Him, I think....

[leo-rcc]

The onus is on Him, I think....

I wouldn't hold my breath in anticipation.