Dawkin's God Delusion

[finlma]

Just reading it at the moment and I have to say its a great read. I have been a non-believer since I reached the age of reasoning but it was great to read a clearly thought out argument which uses science to disprove the existence of any supernatural God. Evolution clearly shows how we arrived as we are in the present day.

I'm not interested in hearing from religous folk who slate Dawkins unless they have read the book and can comment intelligently on it.

Has anyone read it - if not I really suggest you do.

[John83]

I haven't read this one, though I've read a couple of his other books. I'm not a fan of Dawkin. He's repulsively arrogant and his arguments often contain suspect logic. I also find his style of writing a bit dull. He repeats himself a lot. I hesitate to think what someone who doesn't mostly agree with him would think of his books.

[BohsPartisan]

What have you read and why do you disagree with him?

[John83]

What have you read and why do you disagree with him?

The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable, though I abandoned reading Climbing about half way through - very read for me to drop a book once I've started it.

I didn't say I disagreed with him. Please read my post more carefully.

[BohsPartisan]

Well you said you're not a fan. Not the same thing I admit.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Reading the God Delusion at the moment. Great read. Read the Selfish Gene before it but I haven't read the Blind Watchmaker yet.

As for Dawkins arrogance (or not) ...it's about time atheism had a spokesperson willing to take a long hot p1ss down on some of the twisted, jumbled nonsense religious of every creed and colour profess to be truth.

As he says in the preface "the gloves are off".

[Roadend]

Evolution clearly shows how we arrived as we are in the present day.

Eh, no it doesn't and there is certainly no common scientific concensus on how life began. I'm neither a religer nor a Dawkinser before you ask.

[dahamsta]

I haven't read any of his books, but I've seen him talk several times and I honestly believe he's one of the great intellects of our time. His ability to reason so calmly and thoughtfully in the face of obnoxiousness and idiocy is incredibly unusual these days.

[finlma]

Eh, no it doesn't and there is certainly no common scientific concensus on how life began.

Fair enough but its a damn lot more logical than some supernatural God.

[John83]

Well you said you're not a fan. Not the same thing I admit.

Yeah, I can understand how you might have picked it up like that. I mean I don't like his writing style mainly.

[Philly]

Dawkins book is more of a massive "Opinion Column" than a scientific debunking of there being a creator. He also can't seem to make his mind up on the issue. In interviews he states there is no God, in the book he implies there is a possibility at time.

Religious people look at the world, nature, the universe, even evolution - and they see the work of something great.

Athiests see it all as a result of mere chance pretty much.

The God Delusion does not prove God is a delusion, nor does the Bible prove there is a God. It's all down to the individuals beliefs.

[John83]

Religious people look at the world, nature, the universe, even evolution - and they see the work of something great.

Athiests see it all as a result of mere chance pretty much.

Which doesn't make it any more awesome.

[The God Delusion does not prove God is a delusion, nor does the Bible prove there is a God. It's all down to the individuals beliefs.[/quote]
Actually, either one or the other is true. Individual beliefs don't really come into it.

[finlma]

He also can't seem to make his mind up on the issue. In interviews he states there is no God, in the book he implies there is a possibility at time.

Incorrect. He firmly believes that there is no such thing as God and goes about proving why there almost certainly is none. He has always stated that he can't be 100% sure just like not a single person on this planet can be 100% sure that there is a God

The God Delusion does not prove God is a delusion, nor does the Bible prove there is a God. It's all down to the individuals beliefs.

Also incorrect. There either is a God or there isn't. There isn't a different God to match every person's individual taste. Its amazing how religion can just take rational thought and logic and through it out the window.

[dahamsta]

I concur with finmla on the first point, he's always been crystal clear about it in every interview I've seen.

[BohsPartisan]

Atheists don't put evolution down to pure chance. We put it down to the awesome complexity of natural selection.

[Student Mullet]

Atheists don't put evolution down to pure chance. We put it down to the awesome complexity of natural selection.

But you believe that the awsome complexity of natural selection arose out of chance.

In any case, a God's existance isn't something that can be proven or disproven so it's always going to come down to some believing and some not.

[jebus]

I'm with John83 on Dawkins to be honest. Whether he's right or not in his arguments I find the man to be as obnoxious as the Christian far right in America. I don't think he ever asks or is willing to listen to reasoned debate and his 'I'm right, no questions' attitude puts me off the man.

I do find it funny that many of Dawkins supporters hold him up as some sort of Christ like idol though, but again, if you check out pro-Dawkins message boards there's very little discussion going on, and anyone who opposes their views is attacked personally, so basically I treat them with the same regard I treat bible thumpers

[osarusan]

In any case, a God's existance isn't something that can be proven or disproven so it's always going to come down to some believing and some not.

Exactly. It was Steven Hawking (the one true genius of our time, I believe) who said something like......"It cannot be proven in any way that God exists. However I fully accept that he may exist in some way which is not scientifically quantifiable"

[BohsPartisan]

In any case, a God's existance isn't something that can be proven or disproven so it's always going to come down to some believing and some not.

No its a matter of probability.
There is no other concept with as low a probability as the existance of god that has so much credance. You can't prove there isn't an invisible rooster holding up the earth and stopping it from falling for eternity but you'd say I was mad if I believed in it. Belief must have a basis. The evidence is there that god does not exist. What is this evidence you ask? The history of religion. If there's one thing the history of religion and spiritual belief proves its that superstition has always been a substitute for a lack of understanding. God was a figment of the human imagination. That is why the probability of god existing is close to zero. If you have a horse that has odds of 1,000-1 it has "a chance" of winning, but would you believe that horse was going to win. The odds on gods existance are so wide that there is not enough room for me to type the number here, yet you think because no one can categorically disprove Gods existance then the chance of his existance are the same as his non existance I.E. 50-50!

[osarusan]

No its a matter of probability.
There is no other concept with as low a probability as the existance of god that has so much credance. You can't prove there isn't an invisible rooster holding up the earth and stopping it from falling for eternity but you'd say I was mad if I believed in it. Belief must have a basis. The evidence is there that god does not exist. What is this evidence you ask? The history of religion. If there's one thing the history of religion and spiritual belief proves its that superstition has always been a substitute for a lack of understanding. God was a figment of the human imagination. That is why the probability of god existing is close to zero. If you have a horse that has odds of 1,000-1 it has "a chance" of winning, but would you believe that horse was going to win. The odds on gods existance are so wide that there is not enough room for me to type the number here, yet you think because no one can categorically disprove Gods existance then the chance of his existance are the same as his non existance I.E. 50-50!

You mad b@stard.