after reading the God Delusion

branie

Did you become an atheist, or did it just reinforce your views on god and religion?

Dave!

Don't think it did either to be honest... I was fairly secure in my sentiments regarding religion before reading it. And I took all that I read with a pinch of salt, because I didn't really expect it to be particularly balanced. In the end I don't think it made much a difference to me, but it provided some interesting enough statistics and the likes.

armour87

Small steps up the mountain probable.

limerick_woody

I must confess (can i say that here?), that it took about 2 chapters of of RD's book to confirm what i always suspected, but never gave any thought to. What the book really did is make me feel like a fool for not seeing what is so obvious much earlier. I havn't had a second of doubt since - there is no god, there never was and it's a shame more people can't think for themselves. I have read much more since, between Harris, Hitchens, Dennet and all there debates, and i havn't heard a single comment from a believer that makes me doubt.

Zombrex

limerick_woody wrote: »

I must confess (can i say that here?), that it took about 2 chapters of of RD's book to confirm what i always suspected, but never gave any thought to. What the book really did is make me feel like a fool for not seeing what is so obvious much earlier. I havn't had a second of doubt since - there is no god, there never was and it's a shame more people can't think for themselves. I have read much more since, between Harris, Hitchens, Dennet and all there debates, and i havn't heard a single comment from a believer that makes me doubt.

I think that is what Dawkins was going for. Despite claims often made to the contrary, he wasn't writing the God Delusion to convert believers, but for people like yourself who were "closet atheists", as he calls it, who didn't believe but either hadn't though much thought to it or were unable to form proper idea to back up their beliefs.

limerick_woody

I have since begun to wonder if it takes a certain type of mind in order for it to take the leap - clearly not everyone will. I certainly don't mean to infer by that only people of higher intelligence become atheists, bit i do think it takes an enquiring mind, not all minds are created equal. My wife is an urbane, intelligent practicing RC and is refusing to look at the evidence, i know ignorance is bliss but maybe some people just want to hold on to the safety net of religion? Just a thought.

Dades

limerick_woody wrote: »

My wife is an urbane, intelligent practicing RC and is refusing to look at the evidence, i know ignorance is bliss but maybe some people just want to hold on to the safety net of religion? Just a thought.

I know exactly what you mean.
The alternative just doesn't have the perks.

iUseVi

limerick_woody wrote: »

I have since begun to wonder if it takes a certain type of mind in order for it to take the leap - clearly not everyone will. I certainly don't mean to infer by that only people of higher intelligence become atheists, bit i do think it takes an enquiring mind, not all minds are created equal. My wife is an urbane, intelligent practicing RC and is refusing to look at the evidence, i know ignorance is bliss but maybe some people just want to hold on to the safety net of religion? Just a thought.

Agreed. That's pretty much the same conclusion I've come too. Some people just don't want to think about the alternative. Fair enough, I'm not going to force them to listen, but it speaks volumes about how solid their foundation really is.

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

but for people like yourself who were "closet atheists", as he calls it, who didn't believe but either hadn't though much thought to it or were unable to form proper idea to back up their beliefs.

That sums my experience of it up nicely.

MrP

karen3212

As far as I can remember I only got half way through the book. I was an atheist before and it didn't change my thinking. I learned a good few facts about evolution from it though.

wandatowell

The thing I dont like about the book is that Richard Dawkins is so god damn
smart and gives a pretty solid arguement, its very hard to disagree with the man.

limerick_woody

wandatowell wrote: »

The thing I dont like about the book is that Richard Dawkins is so god damn
smart and gives a pretty solid arguement, its very hard to disagree with the man.

surely we have an atheist in waiting here...

Ekancone

Come with us, brother! We know the true way!

robindch

hmm... praise the lord, I suppose?

RealEstateKing

up non-religious, and sent to a non-religious school.

The only time I ever set foot in a Church was at funerals and weddings. And even at 9 years old I couldnt beleive what I was hearing: Watching fully mature, college-educated adults go on for hours about their imaginary friends appalled me even then.

I welcome the God Delusion, but it didnt really teach me anything I didnt already know.

As Christopher Hitchens said in one of those youtube debates, when given his 5 minutes to make his point: "Well I hardly think I need 5 whole minutes to dispense with the existence of God!"

Galvasean

armour87 wrote: »

Small steps up the mountain probable.

Oooh, that was a good answer.
I'll second that.

username123

I read it and thought he was stating the obvious. Then I realised that just because I was an athiest I had sort of assumed anyone with an ounce of intelligence who had ever heard of evolution must think the same as me. Not so it turns out!! So it woke me up to the fact that loads of people out there reject science and embrace religion - whereas Id done the opposite since I could think for myself.
He presents extremely well written arguments and some interesting ideas - anyone who enjoyed it should read The Portable Athiest - its a collection of various pieces over the years put to gether by Hitchens - excellent reading.

Bduffman

I've read the god delusion & enjoyed it but am looking for other material. Which would you all recommend as the best author on this subject? Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, anyone else?

iUseVi

Bduffman wrote: »

I've read the god delusion & enjoyed it but am looking for other material. Which would you all recommend as the best author on this subject? Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, anyone else?

They all have entirely different writing styles and talk about different stuff. Dawkins is obviously more science-prone, as is Harris. Hitchens has a hard-to-read writing style IMO, but if you are interested in history and/or politics he's good.

Plenty of other good stuff out there. I just purchased "The Portable Atheist", introduced by Hitchens; its a collection of short atheistic pieces. Highly recommended as an introduction.

Canis Lupus

BUMP.

Reading this book atm. Quite enjoyable. It also makes me a little angry when you think about it and how otherwise ordinary normal people buy into religion. I kinda want to go out on the street and start shaking people

Galvasean

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I kinda want to go out on the street and start shaking people

Seriously, don't. Thats what separates us from the Scientologists.

Canis Lupus

They were out on the street on the weekend with weird machines messuring stress or some such thing over here in Hammersmith, London.

I was genuinely shocked again to see how many people were sitting down talking with them.

Dades

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I was genuinely shocked again to see how many people were sitting down talking with them.

You'd be surprised how many people just want to talk to someone.

Canis Lupus

I thought that's what chuggers were for?

Galvasean

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I was genuinely shocked again to see how many people were sitting down talking with them.

A lot of people don't actually realize its a religious recruitment center.
Others just find it downright funny.

Typical Scientology reasoning take 1:
"Are you afraid of the dark?"
No.
"You are clearly lacking in sense. There is much to be feared in the dark. Join us to find the light."

Take 2:
"Are you afraid of the dark?"
Yes.
"You have irrational fears. Join us to overcome them."

nozzferrahhtoo

The book for me didnt so much convert or strengthen my beleifs, but instead articulated them better than I have been able to. It also gave me references to names and books that I otherwise wouldnt have read. Work your way through 10% of the books Dawkins references and you will be a better person for it in many ways.

Also Dawkins was great at articulating responses to some of the theists points that up to a point we all know are rubbish, but have never been able to quite put into words why.

I certainly don't mean to infer by that only people of higher intelligence become atheists

Yes, alas the confounding this is that many very intelligent people, and very well read people are also very religious. It is true that the better a persons education the statistics show they are less likely to be religious. But still some of the greatest names in our history have been theists, and some of the greats (like Einstein for example) have been Deists. The reasons for religious beleif then are unlikely to be, or at least unlikely solely to be, due to intelligence.

Some people just don't want to think about the alternative.

This is a good point and one you should keep in mind when listening to theists debate. They are VERY good at making considering the alternative a very scarey thing. This is one of the reasons I think theism holds. They do totally dishonest things like point out some awful people who were atheists like Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc and suggest that by considering Atheism you will be going down a road these people travelled. The mere thought of that is scarey enough to anyone. Couple that with their lies that morality doesnt exist without god and the idea of having to reconsider ones morals, right down to the most basic levels, sends people running back to the pews.

Which would you all recommend as the best author on this subject? Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, anyone else?

Fully agree with the person who said their styles are very different. Hitchens outright attacks religions itself rather than faith. Daniel Dennett more looks at the reasons for religious beleif. Harris is the calmest writer and looks at the issue of faith more than religion. So they are all good and they dont overlap 100%. Read them all.

If you want to start small Harris' book "Letter to a christian Nation" is readable in a couple of hours. So a good place to start. You will want to go right into his other book "End Of Faith" after it though.

markyedison

Bduffman wrote: »

I've read the god delusion & enjoyed it but am looking for other material. Which would you all recommend as the best author on this subject? Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, anyone else?

Another mention for the Portable Atheist. A great one for the bedside table.:)

Also, Julian Baggini. He's a pop philosopher (in a good way). His book is like the GD but less from an evololutionary science standpoint and more focused on clarifying what atheism is and how to defend it from nutjob theists who may view you as evil. check it out on amazon. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atheism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192804243/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211903341&sr=8-1

Cheers,
Marky

Dave!

I'm working my way through the Selfish Gene now Only on page 20 or so I wish audiobooks were cheaper.....

JimiTime

Canis Lupus wrote: »

They were out on the street on the weekend with weird machines messuring stress or some such thing over here in Hammersmith, London.

I was genuinely shocked again to see how many people were sitting down talking with them.

Most don't know its anything to do with scientology. Free stress test or personality test, and a book on dianetics is what their footsoldiers market. Only people interested in religion etc, will know exactly what it is.

pclancy

I found it not only nicely knocked home a lot of existing beliefs and opinions I had, (always good to read something by someone like him that you've shared for years) but answered a lot of factual questions related to the bible and christianity that i wasnt arsed searching around for myself because I find religion so ridiculous. His happieness in wanting to live as much as possible with the one life he does have really got across to me as well and confirmed again my own contentment with the fact that because i didnt exist for so many millions of years before i was born and concious, I have no fear for the endless billions of years that will pass after I die. Great book.

StormWarrior

I thought this book was rubbish. A 5 year old could have countered his juvenile arguments with ease. And no, I am not a Christian or anything of the sort.

Galvasean

Controversial stance SormWarrior. Would you care to counter one of the arguments as an example?

Dades

StormWarrior wrote: »

I thought this book was rubbish. A 5 year old could have countered his juvenile arguments with ease. And no, I am not a Christian or anything of the sort.

Quit your trolling, unless you're prepared to give an example.

Zombrex

StormWarrior wrote: »

And no, I am not a Christian or anything of the sort.

We will decide that Stormy ... now the way this works is that we throw you in the river, if you drown you are not a Christian (peace be with your non-existence soul). On the other hand if you float you may well be a Christian, so we will have to burn you at the stake. If you burn to death you are definitely not a Christian (peace be with your non-existence soul), but on the other hand if you don't burn you are a Christian and we will have to be head you and drive a stake through your heart.

Canis Lupus

Whilst I don't normally post this kind of stuff but I was reading away there yesterday and just read a passage about death (can't even remember it properly) and I thought that death is going to suck.

I will cease to be. Apart from that tragedy I won't get to see cool things like proper space travel and other stuff like it (assuming good old humans make it that far).

All the things that can and will happen on earth and other planets will miss me by. Although I'd probably have the same complaint if it were so I wish I was born later in time.

I don't particularly want to wink out of existence..... I can see the appeal of religion in this respect.

I've no idea why it played on my mind but it did. The God Delusion makes me a little sad even though I am not religious.

marco_polo

StormWarrior wrote: »

I thought this book was rubbish. A 5 year old could have countered his juvenile arguments with ease. And no, I am not a Christian or anything of the sort.

Since you have failed to provide any examples, may I conclude that you are aged 4 or less?

simonw

I like dawkins, but i thought his more evolution based books were better, there's something about the idea of memes i find very boring. I really like the selfish gene and climbing mount improbable, though they aren't necessarily "athiest" books.

Dave!

I agree simon... I find the memes part to be very boring

robindch

Memes boring? Good heavens, how?

JC 2K3

StormWarrior wrote: »

And no, I am not a Christian or anything of the sort.

Do I not remember you posting a thread thinking that because you had a dream about the 80s, that you believed you had a past life in the 80s or something? Also, I'm pretty sure I've seen you discussing supernatural beliefs in the Spirituality forum before.

You might not be a Christian, but you certainly are "something of the sort" if you hold supernatural beliefs. And having not given any reasons for your statement, I can only conclude that you're just having a jibe, frustrated that what he says isn't consistant with your own beliefs.

aidan24326

DaveMcG wrote: »

I agree simon... I find the memes part to be very boring

Memes are an interesting idea, Susan Blackmore's book 'The Meme Machine' is not a bad read.

Canis Lupus wrote:

I don't particularly want to wink out of existence..... I can see the appeal of religion in this respect.
I've no idea why it played on my mind but it did. The God Delusion makes me a little sad even though I am not religious.

Circumventing the inevitably of death is surely one of the great attractions of it. We're hardwired to be scared of dying, though as a non-believer there's another way to look at it. If there's no afterlife, which seems highly likely, then there's nothing to be scared of. It'll just be the same as it was before you were born. An endless dreamless sleep. (I think) it was Bertrand Russell said 'I was dead for billions of years before I was born and it caused me not the slightest inconvenience'. Or something like that.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Do I not remember you posting a thread thinking that because you had a dream about the 80s, that you believed you had a past life in the 80s or something? Also, I'm pretty sure I've seen you discussing supernatural beliefs in the Spirituality forum before.

You might not be a Christian, but you certainly are "something of the sort" if you hold supernatural beliefs. And having not given any reasons for your statement, I can only conclude that you're just having a jibe, frustrated that what he says isn't consistant with your own beliefs.

+1 from me

JC 2K3

DaveMcG wrote: »

I agree simon... I find the memes part to be very boring

But, but.... Pedobear!

Galvasean

DaveMcG wrote: »

I agree simon... I find the memes part to be very boring

Me too. Although the concept of memes is an interesting one, I felt the chapter dedicated to them was overly long.

armour87

StormWarrior wrote: »

I thought this book was rubbish. A 5 year old could have countered his juvenile arguments with ease. And no, I am not a Christian or anything of the sort.

Still waiting for your counter argument here, maybe your searching nearby creches...or out "Rocking the Night"

D.S.

It really is a great book. I didn't want to read it for months (prob a little afraid of what I already knew) but really found it a liberating read.

iamahumbleman

branie wrote: »

Did you become an atheist, or did it just reinforce your views on god and religion?

the best answer to this question is 'both'.

steve

skinner2x

D.S. wrote: »

It really is a great book. I didn't want to read it for months (prob a little afraid of what I already knew) but really found it a liberating read.

+ 1
Book confirmed what I always suspected. The catholic guilt was strong, still can't discuss with any 'offline' friends, as all god fearin' folks.

NotMe

Haven't read it yet but it's on my list and I'm looking forward to it. I'm halfway through The Selfish Gene at the moment which is a great book!

jayteecork

I read the first few chapters and thought that the arguments were just rehashes of those that have been around since the 17th century.

I'm not stating my stance on the matter but I thought Dawkins was being very original.

aidan24326

jayteecork wrote: »

I read the first few chapters and thought that the arguments were just rehashes of those that have been around since the 17th century.

I'm not stating my stance on the matter but I thought Dawkins was being very original.

I presume you mean Dawkins wasn't being original? Otherwise your post doesn't make sense.

While some of his arguments may indeed be rehashes, this is the first time that they've been gathered together in a heavily publicised and widely-read book, afaik.

jayteecork

aidan24326 wrote: »

I presume you mean Dawkins wasn't being original? Otherwise your post doesn't make sense.

Yes, obviously.

But yeah, I have a degree in philosophy and all the arguments are standard.

I'd agree with you as well that Dawkins' book is an effort to get all the arguments in one place and hope to be read by the general public.


Again I'll refrain from casting my opinion on the matter, probably here already somewhere.