The God Delusion

[The People's Hero]

Just finished it.

Rise up with me fellow atheists. Let us stand up and be strong and talk of things which exist.

[Moreton]

Gravity.

[Zingari]

keep intending to read it ; do you recommend it ?

[The People's Hero]

keep intending to read it ; do you recommend it ?

I absolutely recommend it.

I've read a number of similar(ish) books but Dawkins' has by far the most lucid writing style and the most comprehensive (and sensible) approach.

Where he does go off on a tangent, it remains readable, enjoyable and illuminating.

It's not a book to pick up and read a few pages of and put down though - I was fortunate enough to have a week's holiday recently, so i read the majority there.

[James.]

I'll definitely read it at some point.

Apparently there's a very good rebuttal out there somewhere... can't remember what it's called or who wrote it which isn't particularly useful.

[Asha]

The only delusion is people not believing in God.

Imo.

[Zingari]

I'll definitely read it at some point.

Apparently there's a very good rebuttal out there somewhere... can't remember what it's called or who wrote it which isn't particularly useful.

its called the dawkins delusion i think

[MC Prussian]

The only delusion is people not believing in God.

Imo.

It was about time for a Medieval comeback trend - torture and holy crusades are on the rise!

I'll spend this weekend looking for a proper horse, armour and above all - a sword that matches my personality.

Infidels, watch out or the Lord!

[The People's Hero]

I'll definitely read it at some point.

Apparently there's a very good rebuttal out there somewhere... can't remember what it's called or who wrote it which isn't particularly useful.

I'd be interested in finding out - so if it comes back to you, please do let me know.

A lot of what Dawkins says strikes me as being common sense and logical and hard to argue with other than to argue that science and 'faith/religion' operate in different spheres.

There is of course an overlap - eg creationism disproved by big bang.

So I imagine I'd be more inclined to side with Dawkins. It would be interesting to read the rebuttal in any case.

[Zingari]

I'd be interested in finding out - so if it comes back to you, please do let me know.

A lot of what Dawkins says strikes me as being common sense and logical and hard to argue with other than to argue that science and 'faith/religion' operate in different spheres.

There is of course an overlap - eg creationism disproved by big bang.

So I imagine I'd be more inclined to side with Dawkins. It would be interesting to read the rebuttal in any case.

i think he means the "dawkins delusion" by alister mcgrath

i've just bought a copy of both that and the god delusion and intend to read them both soon

[The People's Hero]

i think he means the "dawkins delusion" by alister mcgrath

i've just bought a copy of both that and the god delusion and intend to read them both soon

I'll track down a copy.

[MC Prussian]

I'll buy it. Sounds like an interesting read.

[Flynny]

I thought it was great, but that he went a bit too far. An evolutionary basis for religion isn't really needed, and the part where he tries to establish one is not only dull but weak as an arguement and too full of maybes. Anything thats a product of sentient thought rather than instinct doesn't need an evolutionary basis, I would have thought, hence why we continue to lead ever more complex lives on the fragile stilts of civilisation whilst not progressing as a species on a biological level.

That came out a bit more elaborate than I intended there. Bloody good book apart from that, though.

[The People's Hero]

I thought it was great, but that he went a bit too far. An evolutionary basis for religion isn't really needed, and the part where he tries to establish one is not only dull but weak as an arguement and too full of maybes. Anything thats a product of sentient thought rather than instinct doesn't need an evolutionary basis, I would have thought, hence why we continue to lead ever more complex lives on the fragile stilts of civilisation whilst not progressing as a species on a biological level.

That came out a bit more elaborate than I intended there. Bloody good book apart from that, though.

I think his argument about religion through evolution stands up... just about... I viewed it as the suggestion that religious societies stuck together and looked out for each other giving them greater chance of survival etc, this 'religion' was then passed to children of those particular societies. I think it was a (perhaps clumsy) hypothesis of the way religion survived and spread rather than a suggestion that we as a species are 'programmed' to seek religion.

[Flynny]

I think his argument about religion through evolution stands up... just about... I viewed it as the suggestion that religious societies stuck together and looked out for each other giving them greater chance of survival etc, this 'religion' was then passed to children of those particular societies. I think it was a (perhaps clumsy) hypothesis of the way religion survived and spread rather than a suggestion that we as a species are 'programmed' to seek religion.

Possibly, it just seemed unnecessary, convoluted and not particularly enlightening, as well as a bit of a tangent and not really shedding any light on the other subjects touched on in the book. While since I read it, though, to be fair. I guess that if he's asserting that religion's on an instinctive level, that might explain why it would seem to operate so contrary to normal logic, but it wasn't a leap he made himself, if I remember rightly.

[The People's Hero]

Possibly, it just seemed unnecessary, convoluted and not particularly enlightening, as well as a bit of a tangent and not really shedding any light on the other subjects touched on in the book. While since I read it, though, to be fair. I guess that if he's asserting that religion's on an instinctive level, that might explain why it would seem to operate so contrary to normal logic, but it wasn't a leap he made himself, if I remember rightly.

In fact, I think he made a point of stressing that he wasn't making that leap.

I agree that it did sit a little unnaturally in the book. That said, as a whole, the book hangs together very well.

[MPH]

I'd be interested in finding out - so if it comes back to you, please do let me know.

A lot of what Dawkins says strikes me as being common sense and logical and hard to argue with other than to argue that science and 'faith/religion' operate in different spheres.

There is of course an overlap - eg creationism disproved by big bang.

So I imagine I'd be more inclined to side with Dawkins. It would be interesting to read the rebuttal in any case.

quite an interesting website - www.answersingenesis.org written by creation scientists... incidently their european HQ is in Leicester.

[Flynny]

quite an interesting website - www.answersingenesis.org written by creation scientists... incidently their european HQ is in Leicester.

AnswersInGenesis? You've never just linked to that website. I've seen it destroyed and taken apart a million times over on forums i've lurked a bit, it's about as credible as Michael Behe.

[MPH]

AnswersInGenesis? You've never just linked to that website. I've seen it destroyed and taken apart a million times over on forums i've lurked a bit, it's about as credible as Michael Behe.

try looking at their articles. or some of the book titles on there you can find them on amazon too if you dont want to get anything from that website.

[Flynny]

try looking at their articles. or some of the book titles on there you can find them on amazon too if you dont want to get anything from that website.

I have. I can tell you after a year and a half of A-level geology that the flood geology section is a load of bollocks. God knows how little I'd think of it when I've done the degree. Most of it tries to find controversy and "wrongness" where none exists. As an example:

"The line of unconformity is slight and often none exists except to the eye of the geologists looking at that exact horizon for it."

Notice the frank admission that no unconformity exists except to the geologist who is looking for it - another way of saying that often there is no unconformity at all!

Thats not what that bit's saying AT ALL, but this article is happy to twist it, and more people will take it at face value and be none the wiser.

I have a fair bit of respect for religion as a whole at times, mostly on a level removed from the rational. There's something very profound in a search for meaning, even if personally I find it most comforting to believe that there's none. It's not until the religious start childishly picking at science like this that I feel anything approaching anger.

If you presuppose that the flood took place, certain things would fit. A tiny minority, but enough so that you could make a convincing case to the ignorant. At the same time, Geology as a science is inexact because you're piecing together things that happened hundreds of millions of years ago. As with all sciences, there are unsolved problems and things we can't explain yet. Sites like that take this 0.1% and use it to construct a theory thats patently absurd. Unfortunately someone then has to say why the other 99.9% of geological theory entirely disagrees with their arguement, which takes, somewhat ironically, eons.

It's the biologists I feel sorry for.

[Dr The Singh]

I have no issues with people critically analysing religiosn and having a masters in chemistry i'm also very intrigued!!

The only disapointment I have with western literature on such novels is that they only analyse the abrahamic faiths, and more so christianity!! I don't want to go into Sikhism, but evolution and the theory is very much a part of it, including the big bang and darwin's theory!!

I only wish authors and writers would not generalise all faiths and assimilate them as one, being mainly christianity!!!

[The People's Hero]

I have no issues with people critically analysing religiosn and having a masters in chemistry i'm also very intrigued!!

The only disapointment I have with western literature on such novels is that they only analyse the abrahamic faiths, and more so christianity!! I don't want to go into Sikhism, but evolution and the theory is very much a part of it, including the big bang and darwin's theory!!

I only wish authors and writers would not generalise all faiths and assimilate them as one, being mainly christianity!!!

Dawkins does make the point that he is discussing only Abrahamic Faiths which are structured similarly.

I'd be interested in learning more about Sikhism myself as I have to confess, I'm almost completely ignorant on the subject. I vaguely recall something about Guru Nanak and lots of things beginning with K (holy objects?) - apologies if I'm mistaking/getting religions muddled.

[Manwell Pablo]

Dawkins does make the point that he is discussing only Abrahamic Faiths which are structured similarly.

I'd be interested in learning more about Sikhism myself as I have to confess, I'm almost completely ignorant on the subject. I vaguely recall something about Guru Nanak and lots of things beginning with K (holy objects?) - apologies if I'm mistaking/getting religions muddled.

A licky Boom Boom Down.

[l444ry]

[MPH]

A licky Boom Boom Down.

Informer!

ok whats the next line.....