Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)

[BaSICCally]

I thought I might post some links to some videos I watched on the internet. Pretty intresting. I was thinking that I might post this in the video thread but I felt it disserved its own. Im sure the moderator would feel the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWL1ZMH3-54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx5RSxHbiZg

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Great book. Will check vid's later

 

[ThaG]

Dawkins is the man

he just kills all the creationism/ID clowns

 

[HiT-2-TiMeS]

I read part of that book and I thought it was pretty lame. He made some good points about how people get offended when you try to debate their beliefs, but I think it is a gigantic waste of time to convince people to be atheists. They are going to believe what they are going to believe. Also approaching it as a scientific question is pretty pointless because you are never going to get satisfactory proof one way or the other.

 

[Hutch]

I read part of that book and I thought it was pretty lame. He made some good points about how people get offended when you try to debate their beliefs, but I think it is a gigantic waste of time to convince people to be atheists. They are going to believe what they are going to believe. Also approaching it as a scientific question is pretty pointless because you are never going to get satisfactory proof one way or the other.

You only read part of the book, and it shows. He didn't write the book with the sole purpose of converting those of religious faith into athiests. No. He wrote the book to give confidence to those of us who are athiest but who 'fake' belief in God to fit into society, or who have been trained to think of athiests as heretics who will go to Hell.

Quick question: Do you believe in God? I am assuming you do. Why? Because you only read part of the book and thought it was 'lame', not unlike me reading the bible and thinking it's lame. He doesn't attempt to provide 'proof' against the existence of God, even he admits that it is impossible. Instead, he ascribes a specific probability to the existence of God and, based on our current evidence, the probability of 'him' existing is extremely close to nil.

The God Delusion was a brilliant book. If you're an athiest, I recommend you read it. If you're a believer, then read it at your own risk - you may not believe after you've finished.

 

[HERESY]

I just heard him on the radio, and I must say that he is very well spoken/articulate, and unlike some of the atheists on the board, I honestly believe he is trying to bridge the gap between the two and remove the differences that hold them apart.

BTW, he also spoke about how he quoted Einsten in either God Delusion or Ancestors Tale, and the way he described Einsteins version of "god" (and the way Einstein used the word/term/title) actually made sense.

 

[Hutch]

I honestly believe he is trying to bridge the gap between the two and remove the differences that hold them apart.

I can't see how that's possible unfortunately. There's a great and everlasting divide between theists and athiests - one believes in 'God' and the other doesn't. I suppose the only thing linking the two alternative beliefs is agnosticism, but even Dawkins himself resides on the extreme side of agnosticism right next to outright athiesm.

BTW, he also spoke about how he quoted Einsten in either God Delusion or Ancestors Tale, and the way he described Einsteins version of "god" (and the way Einstein used the word/term/title) actually made sense.

It does make sense, as long as the reader doesn't try to associate Einsteins God with those of a specific religion, be it Abrahamic or otherwise. In a sense, nature is the God of scientists - it's wonderfully complex, near eternal, both beautiful and 'intelligent' and it gave 'birth' to us.

 

[ThaG]

I just heard him on the radio, and I must say that he is very well spoken/articulate, and unlike some of the atheists on the board, I honestly believe he is trying to bridge the gap between the two and remove the differences that hold them apart.

Bridge the gap between what?

Everything Dawkins says is so anti-religious that I can't think he's out for anything else than complete eradication of the religious virus

 

[HERESY]

@ the idiot,

You make it seem as if he hates religion and is anti this and that, but if you heard him on the radio today, you would probably have a different perspective. His OWN WORDS were that science and religion CAN come together, but he placed more emphasis on religions role to achieving such a feat.

I can't see how that's possible unfortunately. There's a great and everlasting divide between theists and athiests - one believes in 'God' and the other doesn't. I suppose the only thing linking the two alternative beliefs is agnosticism, but even Dawkins himself resides on the extreme side of agnosticism right next to outright athiesm.

see above.

It does make sense, as long as the reader doesn't try to associate Einsteins God with those of a specific religion, be it Abrahamic or otherwise. In a sense, nature is the God of scientists - it's wonderfully complex, near eternal, both beautiful and 'intelligent' and it gave 'birth' to us.

But thats not what he talked about, sorry.

 

[Hutch]

You make it seem as if he hates religion and is anti this and that, but if you heard him on the radio today, you would probably have a different perspective. His OWN WORDS were that science and religion CAN come together, but he placed more emphasis on religions role to achieving such a feat...

But thats not what he talked about, sorry.

I'm assuming that you've read The God Delusion based on your strict interpretation of Dawkins thoughs - and then I presume you haven't because of your false interpretations of Dawkins thoughts.

What radio station was he speaking on, or more to the point, what is the specific demographic the station is most popular amongst? The only thing I can conclude from his so-called 'unity among believers and disbelievers' is that he's chosen to tone down his strong anti-religious position because too many theists were getting their panties in a knot.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins expresses his views that religion is not just pointless, but is actually harmful. He does this by citing the numerous wars that have been fought in God's name and the countless innocents tortured.

I doubt very much that he's changed his views over the last few months based on some lame God-inspired epiphany. For me, that only leaves the 'oh well, let the theist babies have their bottle' option.

 

[ValleyPainProduct]

".....if religions main purpose is to make people happy, then we might as well all take drugs and be happy that way......"


hahaha......that line alone makes me like him......

 

[Syko Sniper]

some people believe in GOD because of experiences they cannot explain. I am one of these people.

However I don't go to Church I only pray every night.

 

[HERESY]

I'm assuming that you've read The God Delusion based on your strict interpretation of Dawkins thoughs - and then I presume you haven't because of your false interpretations of Dawkins thoughts

I have the god delusion and the ancestors tale as pdf files, and just because I don't going wandering around the board with his books shoved halfway up my ass doesn't mean I haven't read them. Now, my question to YOU is how do you come to the conclusion that his book MUST be interpreted the way YOU see it? I have the ability to read and think critically, and from what I read and heard, the man is seeking to establish tolerance on both sides. However, if left up to people such as you and the nazi, this man is the ultimate religion hater and is downright disrespectful. IMHO, you are doing a disservice to his literary work, scientific accomplishments and stated opinions.

What radio station was he speaking on, or more to the point, what is the specific demographic the station is most popular amongst?

I'll answer the "more to the point" question. The demographic is EVERYONE because it was on a public access channel on radio and tv. However, do not think for one second that because it caters to everyone that they allow everyone to speak on the show or appear on radio or television programming. IMHO, it is one of the BEST stations on TV today, but you shouldn't even worry about it because you'll never have access to it because you don't live in northern california.

The only thing I can conclude from his so-called 'unity among believers and disbelievers' is that he's chosen to tone down his strong anti-religious position because too many theists were getting their panties in a knot.

He stated the question of god is a scientific one that SHOULD be asked, and that way of logic totally goes against some of the madness I've seen from the atheist queens during my run here. How you can conclude his motives without having heard him speak is idiocy, but if you choose to commit suicide because your scientific lord has a different perspective than what you were led to believe thats your problem not mine. He also admitted that religion HAS done good, and even stated that it isn't right to keep tabs or lists about the bad stuff that religion has caused. In addition, he even said there is a probability that a "god" or something like that does exist, but he said that probability is very low, and also said if there indeed is a creator that the creator would have had to evolve and explained the difference of the creator evolving before or after creation.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins expresses his views that religion is not just pointless, but is actually harmful. He does this by citing the numerous wars that have been fought in God's name and the countless innocents tortured.

But that isn't what he stated last night on the radio.

I doubt very much that he's changed his views over the last few months based on some lame God-inspired epiphany. For me, that only leaves the 'oh well, let the theist babies have their bottle' option.

Hutch, I don't care about what you doubt. You and several others are making it seem as if this man is a religion hater and bringer of the sword, but from what I gather, especially after hearing him speak, he is no such thing. Am I claiming he is a theist or has seen the light? No, because he stated that he is an atheist and lost his faith at the age of 16. However, he IS seeking tolerance from both sides but believes the religious side should be more tolerant, logical and accepting of science.

 

[HERESY]

some people believe in GOD because of experiences they cannot explain. I am one of these people.

However I don't go to Church I only pray every night.

Thats kinda what he was saying about Einstein. He was saying Einstein used "god" to describe the laws of Physics that are still a mystery.

 

[JLMACN]

HERESY I would love to see the gap closed but I firmly believe most religious people love to have this gap there for arguements sake. In most religions, if you dont believe exactly what that religion practices then you dont believe in God. (their God)

However, he IS seeking tolerance from both sides but believes the religious side should be more tolerant, logical and accepting of science.

basically what I am saying......

5000

 

[HERESY]

HERESY I would love to see the gap closed but I firmly believe most religious people love to have this gap there for arguements sake. In most religions, if you dont believe exactly what that religion practices then you dont believe in God. (their God)



basically what I am saying......

5000

EMPHASIS ADDED

Now think about THIS board and what goes on here. You have people here that ADMIT to not reading the bible yet they bash it. You have people here who ADMIT to not studying religion yet they bash it. You have people here who post and spam the board with billions of topics about science and say "here read this it is true", yet when you give them something to read they don't do it. In addition, pay attention to the words the atheists use.

Here is an example:

eradication of the religious virus

Anytime a person calls a group of people or an idea/system a virus, cancer, disease etc, they are using it in an insulting manner. I've shown time and time again that atheists on this board are the FIRST ones to hurl insults. So, how can there be a compromise when you have people like THAG, who sit in there pampers everyday, perform unsanctioned/unregulated experiments on vermin and feral cats, remain bias and insult people just because of what they believe in?

 

[ThaG]

EMPHASIS ADDED

Now think about THIS board and what goes on here. You have people here that ADMIT to not reading the bible yet they bash it. You have people here who ADMIT to not studying religion yet they bash it. You have people here who post and spam the board with billions of topics about science and say "here read this it is true", yet when you give them something to read they don't do it. In addition, pay attention to the words the atheists use.

Here is an example:



Anytime a person calls a group of people or an idea/system a virus, cancer, disease etc, they are using it in an insulting manner. I've shown time and time again that atheists on this board are the FIRST ones to hurl insults. So, how can there be a compromise when you have people like THAG, who sit in there pampers everyday, perform unsanctioned/unregulated experiments on vermin and feral cats, remain bias and insult people just because of what they believe in?

Dawkins was the one who called religion a "virus", not me

that's for those who claim to have read his books and essays

 

[HERESY]

Dawkins was the one who called religion a "virus", not me

that's for those who claim to have read his books and essays

Everyone read this:

Everything Dawkins says is so anti-religious that I can't think he's out for anything else than complete eradication of the religious virus

When a person says something like that are they implying that Dawkins is saying that? NO! When a person says "I cant think he's out for...." is it logical to assume that anyone BESIDES the speaker/typist is presenting his views? NO!

ThaG, next semester you need to take an ENTRY level course dealing with sentence structure and grammer. I'm not the best person at english, but I know how to convey my thoughts. NO PERSON READING YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT WOULD BE LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE VIRUS STATEMENT WAS MADE BY DAWKINS.

Again, you said everything dawkins said is anti-religious, and you follow that up with what YOU think which is HE is out for the complete eradication of the religious "virus".

1. Study sentence structure and critical writing.

2. Next time CITE or Quote the guy instead of passing it off as your own words.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I've watched numerous Dawkins videos and it is pretty clear to me that if he had it his way, there would be no religion at all. But perhaps he's changed his mind since then...????

 

[JLMACN]

EMPHASIS ADDED

Now think about THIS board and what goes on here. You have people here that ADMIT to not reading the bible yet they bash it. You have people here who ADMIT to not studying religion yet they bash it. You have people here who post and spam the board with billions of topics about science and say "here read this it is true", yet when you give them something to read they don't do it. In addition, pay attention to the words the atheists use.

Here is an example:



Anytime a person calls a group of people or an idea/system a virus, cancer, disease etc, they are using it in an insulting manner. I've shown time and time again that atheists on this board are the FIRST ones to hurl insults. So, how can there be a compromise when you have people like THAG, who sit in there pampers everyday, perform unsanctioned/unregulated experiments on vermin and feral cats, remain bias and insult people just because of what they believe in?

I agree for the most part BUT.....

Im not one of those individuals that will constantly bash religion and say ITS ALL BAD!!! (I dont do that)

I think religion is needed but it also needs to be tamed. How do we tame religion? I dont know. I think it is ridiculous that a president (BUSH and past presidents) can use Christianity in such a powerful swaying way to get votes. As you say, you hate it when people (athiest) sit here and bash religion and have not studied it, fine, but nothing drives me more than a so called "religious" person (no matter what religion) practicing something they dont themselves completely understand. For example, Tithing in the christian church....for everyone 1 person that believe you do NOt have to give 10% of your money to church, you have 20 people saying, YES you do. Why do we have this seperation? Me as an athiest FEEDs off of situations like this....to be an Atheist.

But at the same time when I see my mom who is a devote christian woman give her 10% 'becuase God says so'....yet, she struggles to pay bills month to month, I hate it....

yet i love it (in a sense) because the belief in God made my mom stay with my pops when he was beating her and slandering her left and right. She always told that God gave her the strength (through prayer), so who am I to sit her and say "no he didnt".....you know?

well anyway.....



5000