Just started reading The God Delusion

condra

Obviously The God Delusion is old news around here, but I just wanted to say, personally, 80 pages in, so far I think its a great book.

A very enjoyable read for an atheist.

Although I cant imagine many religious people enjoying it, or getting past the first couple of pages, I can imagine it being inspirational for those "sitting on the fence".

I read about 80 pages in my first sitting, which for me, is pretty good going.

Fallen Seraph

I think I only read about 80 pages in, and gave up because it was such bunk.

I actually thought that he came across no better than a creationist up to that point in the book.

I thought it was meh
I never even finished it or got halfway through tbh

5uspect

Its a good book but it doesn't break much new ground. I'd recommend Sam Harris. His books are great.

Scofflaw

General review of the 'new atheists' (by an atheist).

cordially,
Scofflaw

condra

tough crowd

Scofflaw

womoma wrote: »

tough crowd

True dat.

amused,
Scofflaw

stereoroid

You guys who didn't finish it: I recommend you persevere. The 2nd half is more positive than the 1st half, not as negative. You're falling in to the same trap as many "reviewers" did: if you don't eat your dinner, you don't get the dessert. :cool:

Fallen Seraph

But the first bit hurt my brain so badly...
I mean take this for example:


*roots around a bit*

Stephen J. Gould (as quoted in the God Delusion) wrote:

'To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth
time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply
cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's
possible superintendence of nature.

That is to say, we have Stephen J. Gould asserting his idea of non-overlapping magisteria in a rather exasperated tone. And a page or two later Dawkins has this to say about Gould's opinion of NOMA:

Dawkins wrote:

I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant
much of what he [said about NOMA].

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...
Bunk much?

[rant of dubious coherence]
So when the bible says "Love thy neighbour" it means that you have carte blanche to commit atrocities on people of different ethnicities, but when a dinstinguished biologist says (to paraphrase) "As I've said countless times before, i REALLY think that science can't say anything about the existence of god" he actually means the exact opposite, and was just lying....



And, this is a bit of digression, the whole "no really, einstein was an atheist" argument really gets my goat. Why the hell should anyone care if he was an atheist? Just because famous people believe something has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON ITS VERACITY!!

[/rant of dubious coherence]

Dave!

I think the Einstein thing was in response to theist claims that he was in fact a believer. It doesn't have any bearing on whether god exists or not, but it's patently false, and if it's being used as propaganda (even Einstein believed in god!), then it should be addressed.

Fallen Seraph

DaveMcG wrote: »

I think the Einstein thing was in response to theist claims that he was in fact a believer. It doesn't have any bearing on whether god exists or not, but it's patently false, and if it's being used as propaganda (even Einstein believed in god!), then it should be addressed.

I know that that was why he was talking about it. But it should NOT be addressed. It should be pointed out that if you believe a philosophical/theological idea on the basis that Einstein did then you're a gombeen.

Dades

Fallen Seraph wrote: »

It should be pointed out that if you believe a philosophical/theological idea on the basis that Einstein did then you're a gombeen.

So true. That's nearly as bad as believing in something just because your parents did.

jtsuited

Fallen Seraph wrote: »

I know that that was why he was talking about it. But it should NOT be addressed. It should be pointed out that if you believe a philosophical/theological idea on the basis that Einstein did then you're a gombeen.

Why not? It has often been argued by theists that 'sure Einstein was the greatest scientist ever, and he believed in God'. Therefore the stuff about Einstein is relevant.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

General review of the 'new atheists' (by an atheist).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Not a very good article, also a lot of it is wrong

For example

Dennett is not the only new atheist to employ religious language. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins quotes with approval a new set of Ten Commandments for atheists, which he obtained from an atheist website, without considering odd the idea that atheists require commandments at all, let alone precisely ten of them; nor does their metaphysical status seem to worry him.

If I remember correctly Dawkins does in fact mention the fact that ten commandments are arbitrary and simply done for comparison to the Biblical ten commandments, with there being no actual need for 10.

Dave!

Fallen Seraph wrote: »

I know that that was why he was talking about it. But it should NOT be addressed. It should be pointed out that if you believe a philosophical/theological idea on the basis that Einstein did then you're a gombeen.

Well if it further discredits the fools peddling this crap, then I don't see any reason not to point out that they are lying (as well as, as I'm sure Dawkins did, pointing out that it's irrelevent).

Fallen Seraph

jtsuited wrote: »

Why not? It has often been argued by theists that 'sure Einstein was the greatest scientist ever, and he believed in God'. Therefore the stuff about Einstein is relevant.

DaveMcG wrote:

Well if it further discredits the fools peddling this crap, then I don't see any reason not to point out that they are lying (as well as, as I'm sure Dawkins did, pointing out that it's irrelevent).

Ah, indeed. I suppose I must admit that there is expedience in the rebuttal. I just feel that it's such an inherent non-argument that it shouldn't be dignified with an answer.

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote: »

Ah, indeed. I suppose I must admit that there is expedience in the rebuttal. I just feel that it's such an inherent non-argument that it shouldn't be dignified with an answer.

That would leave me very short of small-talk to make with Creationists, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dave!

Fallen Seraph wrote: »

Ah, indeed. I suppose I must admit that there is expedience in the rebuttal. I just feel that it's such an inherent non-argument that it shouldn't be dignified with an answer.

Fair point

JimiTime

So is he the chosen one prophesised in the sacred parchment?:):D

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

So is he the chosen one prophesised in the sacred parchment?:):D

No, that was Carl Sagan (peace be upon him).

aidan24326

Dennett is not the only new atheist to employ religious language. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins quotes with approval a new set of Ten Commandments for atheists, which he obtained from an atheist website, without considering odd the idea that atheists require commandments at all, let alone precisely ten of them; nor does their metaphysical status seem to worry him.

wicknight wrote:

If I remember correctly Dawkins does in fact mention the fact that ten commandments are arbitrary and simply done for comparison to the Biblical ten commandments, with there being no actual need for 10.

You wonder sometimes if these people have even bothered to read the books that they're reviewing or commenting on. He claims Dawkins 'quotes with approval' when in actual fact he does nothing of the sort. It's just plain lies!

estebancambias

It's a decent book, but Dawkins is overated.

Dave!

good to have you back esteban

estebancambias

Lol...I'm sure you...are not.:)

I bought the book a while back, it's a good read, but it took me a while to finish it off.