Topic: The God Delusion (Read 11594 times)

Probie · « **on:** March 04, 2009, 04:56:44 AM »

I just finished The God Delusion. Know, I had my reservations about reading this book. I saw Dr Richard Dawkins on an English Discussion TV show, and I had only vaguely been aware of him. I thought he seemed a little obnoxious and a trifle "know it all". However when I started it I was taken back, I found his arguments (whilst a little pushing) extremely well thought out and comprehensive.

His anecdotally style of writing was fun and easy to get caught up in, and I also liked his Burka analogy. I did however think that the text sort of trailed off towards the end; I'm not entirely sure if the text lost momentum or I did, but either way I don't think that says good things about the book.

Wait, I'm being a lot more negative than I mean to be. I did enjoy the book , it has inspired me to do a little more back reading and it has also left me with a few 'sound bites' to ensure that I enjoy each day as it comes. So I would give this book an 8/10 over all but a 9/10 because it's the first book I have read of its kind; I guess it will have a place in my heart.

Also since starting the book, I have seem Dawkins in other interviews, and I have come to realise that the obnoxiousness I saw in the first interview was a mistake, it's more intolerance of stupidity, which is quite understandable.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #1 on:** March 04, 2009, 10:00:58 AM »

Isn't Richard Dawkins the guy on Family Feud?

I generally agree with his statements (English guy, not Family Feud Man), but I have serious problems with the word "atheism". It's really a continuum and the way most people seem to define it, including people on this board that I have great respect for, I just don't find reasonable.

I would recommend Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson for something along the same vein (religion as memetic virus), but in a much less dry/serious/academic package.

Probie · « **Reply #2 on:** March 04, 2009, 10:23:11 AM »

What is it about some peoples definition of the word atheism that you don't like, if you don't mind me asking? Or is it that the definitions can be so diverse?

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #3 on:** March 04, 2009, 10:45:17 AM »

I'd rather Demo or someone chime in with their definition, as I hate to speak for others on matters like this...

...but I guess I will anyway.

First off, they will say that atheism is not a belief system the way a religion is.
Then, they will go on to define atheism as a lack of belief in a "magical" creator because there is no evidence for one. That's well and good, but what does it say about the possibility of a magical creator? Nothing, and that's where an atheist is made. Do you believe that it's even remotely possible that God exists? If yes, I would say you have just become an agnostic, at the very minimum. If no, you are an atheist, but you have also entered into a belief system.
My personal opinion is that while I don't believe in a magical creator, it is of course possible that I am wrong, and it is unreasonable to deny the very possibility.

Demo will probably come along shortly to tear this up, but don't be swayed by his beautiful words. He is a silver-tongued devil and will lead you astray

ivan · « **Reply #4 on:** March 04, 2009, 11:01:48 AM »

http://www.geekforum.org/index.php?topic=6389.0

http://www.geekforum.org/index.php?topic=6363.0

http://www.geekforum.org/index.php?topic=5811.0

Some even better ones are gone, unfortunately.

Probie · « **Reply #5 on:** March 04, 2009, 11:31:18 AM »

I wrote a whole big post about how i don't think being an atheist is a about belief, but I got that warning that Ivan had posted and I read a few of those...and unfortunately I agree with Demo. My analogy referenced the tooth fairy...but you get the idea.

However! I do believe that with atheism their is the potential for a lot of beliefs about how you live your life.

I believe I should appreciate this life; instead of moaning about it or praying for the next one.

and

I believe you should do exactly whatever you want without feeling guilty about it, providing you aren't hurting yourself and others.

the latter is particularly important for an ex-catholic.

Probie · « **Reply #6 on:** March 04, 2009, 11:42:55 AM »

wait wait wait, I retract that. I don't agree fully with Demo. Saying :

"If something is absurd by its very definition, no faith is needed in order to make an affirmative statement disavowing its existence. " - demo

I don't believe that. Sure, I think god is extremely unlikely, absurd is not a word i would choose. My Brain tells me through logic and reason that god doesn't exist. It does not however prove irrefutably that he does not exist, there is a possibility he does...I just doubt it.... a lot.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #7 on:** March 04, 2009, 11:48:09 AM »

It sounds like we are in agreement, except that by my definition, you are an agnostic, and by your own, you are an atheist. A small but important distinction, I feel.

Probie · « **Reply #8 on:** March 04, 2009, 12:14:53 PM »

I think their is a pretty big difference between, believing in the possibility of a god and not being able to prove there isn't one.

The scientist in me is unable to say categorically that there can be no god, but I can make a conclusion based on the facts that there isn't one. So when I say god could exist, It's only the lack of proof that he/she doesnt that leads me to that statement.

I don't think its possible for god to exist, but i cant prove it, so he might.

ivan · « **Reply #9 on:** March 04, 2009, 12:17:28 PM »

Quote from: Probie on March 04, 2009, 12:14:53 PM

I think their is a pretty big difference between, believing in the possibility of a god and not being able to prove there isn't one.

The scientist in me is unable to say categorically that there can be no god, but I can make a conclusion based on the facts that there isn't one. So when I say god could exist, It's only the lack of proof that he/she doesnt that leads me to that statement.

I don't think its possible for god to exist, but i cant prove it, so he might.

This is agnosticism.

ivan · « **Reply #10 on:** March 04, 2009, 12:18:54 PM »

And please explain again, what is the difference between saying that God can exist, and that the Tooth Fairy can exist?

ivan · « **Reply #11 on:** March 04, 2009, 12:20:19 PM »

How is an all-powerful, imperfect-human-creating, prayer-answering, infidel-smiting being who cares about our immortal souls more plausible than the Easter Bunny?

Probie · « **Reply #12 on:** March 04, 2009, 12:23:23 PM »

Quote from: ivan on March 04, 2009, 12:20:19 PM

How is an all-powerful, imperfect-human-creating, prayer-answering, infidel-smiting being who cares about our immortal souls more plausible than the Easter Bunny?

He isn't more plausible, he is just as plausible/implausible. The same with the tooth fairy...each is as unlikely as the rest.

ivan · « **Reply #13 on:** March 04, 2009, 12:24:35 PM »

Which reduces the question to an absurd level.

ivan · « **Reply #14 on:** March 04, 2009, 12:33:35 PM »

Look, you have to define the world you live in. Well, you don't have to, but you should, for clarity.

I maintain that not everything is possible. That's the world I live in: a world where not everything is possible. It is not possible for me to jump over buildings. It is not possible for me to transform myself into an intelligent gas. It is not possible for me to cut my head off and live. This is the world where atheists live.

But there are those who say, and believe, that anything is possible. Including a Being that, if He so chooses, can make it so that I can jump over buildings, become an intelligent gas, or live without my head. This is the world where people of faith and agnostics live.

Probie · « **Reply #15 on:** March 04, 2009, 12:39:44 PM »

My reasoning has reduced the question to an aburd level, but the question is answered based on my analgoy not on religion "by definition" as was discussed in the previous posts.

I don't think by its very definition it is absurd.

I just don't think its true, based on the facts.

Probie · « **Reply #16 on:** March 04, 2009, 12:41:51 PM »

Quote from: ivan on March 04, 2009, 12:33:35 PM

Look, you have to define the world you live in. Well, you don't have to, but you should, for clarity.

I maintain that not everything is possible. That's the world I live in: a world where not everything is possible. It is not possible for me to jump over buildings. It is not possible for me to transform myself into an intelligent gas. It is not possible for me to cut my head off and live. This is the world where atheists live.

But there are those who say, and believe, that anything is possible. Including a Being that, if He so chooses, can make it so that I can jump over buildings, become an intelligent gas, or live without my head. This is the world where people of faith and agnostics live.

There comes that word again 'Believe'. I don't 'Believe' in anything. I use facts. But I can't confirm there is no god.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #17 on:** March 04, 2009, 12:48:44 PM »

I prefer the sasquatch analogy. People who believe in sasquatch are generally cranks, but it is possible that it exists, and I am open to believing in sasquatch if evidence is presented. This is not the same as saying that sasquatch does or does not exist.

ivan · « **Reply #18 on:** March 04, 2009, 12:52:55 PM »

The existence of sasquatch does not violate laws of physics, nor does it have implications beyond its mere existence.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #19 on:** March 04, 2009, 01:25:46 PM »

Certainly there are implications, at least as a symbol of the limit of human knowledge, western science, what have you.
The physics of our universe are not completely understood, and one cannot say with certainty what violates them. The best we can say is what does and doesn't fit our current understanding of them. For that matter it's entirely possible physics says nothing about a being who may not live in this universe and is not beholden to its rules. I'd agree that that removes the subject from scientific inquiry, but it was never a question of science. It's a question of how self-identified atheists define the term.

ivan · « **Reply #20 on:** March 04, 2009, 01:28:07 PM »

Define what term?

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #21 on:** March 04, 2009, 01:30:00 PM »

"atheist"

ivan · « **Reply #22 on:** March 04, 2009, 01:34:27 PM »

Why isn't it a question of how self-identified agnostics define the term?

ivan · « **Reply #23 on:** March 04, 2009, 01:39:43 PM »

Quote from: Joe Sixpack on March 04, 2009, 01:25:46 PM

It's a question of how self-identified atheists define the term.

I suppose I should state my definition: An atheist doesn't believe any of the stories about gods and God that people have invented, including the story that gods or God exist.

xolik · « **Reply #24 on:** March 04, 2009, 01:50:44 PM »

The Banana is proof of the existence of God.

Kirk Cameron told me so.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: The God Delusion (Read 11594 times)