The God Delusion

branie

Anyone here ever read Richard Dawkins' famous book on atheism and the dangers of religion?

Lemonperv

Yes.

TwoShedsJackson

Have you read it OP? Please, share your thoughts, in this, the billionth thread about religion in AH in the last week.

MagicMarker

Who's got the popcorn?

branie

I have, and dawkins gives some interesting insights on the subject. he says that God is a malevolent bully, and that religion is a form of child abuse.

keith16

branie wrote: »

Anyone here ever read Richard Dawkins' famous book on atheism and the dangers of religion?

Did you? Does he mention Santa at all?

housetypeb

In before Philologos gets here to talk about jaysus.

TwoShedsJackson

Did you find out who the woman by the pool in The Streets of San Francisco is yet?

branie

Not yet, but if anyone does know who she is, I'll be grateful

philologos

branie wrote: »

Anyone here ever read Richard Dawkins' famous book on atheism and the dangers of religion?

Yes I have. I didn't find it very well argued.

I preferred Christopher Hitchens' God is not Great, it was a good deal less dry and a good deal funnier to read than The God Delusion. Moreover Hitchens book had a little bit more truth to it too.

branie

keith16 wrote: »

Did you? Does he mention Santa at all?

Santa isn't mentioned at all, Keith

MUSEIST

branie wrote: »

Anyone here ever read Richard Dawkins' famous book on atheism and the dangers of religion?

Meh, yes I have. I found it very boring tbh. Lots of banal and obvious points about how ridiculous the concept of religion is, nothing that was not already obvious to most.

Kidchameleon

Dawkins will not deny the existence of god, he's not athiest. He's a clever man though, making millions off gullible people. Sound familiar?

Pherekydes

branie wrote: »

he says that God is a malevolent bully, and that religion is a form of child abuse.

What if god doesn't exist?

Sergeant

Remember when boards.ie was entertaining and interesting?

GrizzlyMan

branie wrote: »

Anyone here ever read Richard Dawkins' famous book on atheism and the dangers of religion?

Currently reading "the selfish gene" which im enjoying. So will read The God Delusion when im done

kneemos

How are God and religion related?

Otacon

philologos wrote: »

Yes I have. I didn't find it very well argued.

I preferred Christopher Hitchens' God is not Great, it was a good deal less dry and a good deal funnier to read than The God Delusion. Moreover Hitchens book had a little bit more truth to it too.

OK, who hacked philologos' account?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Dawkins will not deny the existence of god

Kidchameleon wrote: »

he's not athiest.

Someone doesn't know what 'atheist' means...

Feathers

branie wrote: »

I have, and dawkins gives some interesting insights on the subject.

Wow, with that level of critique you'll do great in the Junior Cert OP. Good luck, let us know how you get on!

4zn76tysfajdxp

Ah yes, Dawkins. I'm a big fan. The only living member of the modern-day Holy Trilogy (Dawkins, Hitchens and Darwin). Praise be to Dawkins. Amen.

philologos

Otacon wrote: »

OK, who hacked philologos' account?

Nobody :eek:, why are you so surprised? :pac:

Plazaman

Yawn, yes yes, those of us who believe in God are deluded and are suffering from mass psychosis whilst all atheists are much better people for not being duped into following a religion.

studiorat

This thread may contain spoilers.

Ush1

Plazaman wrote: »

Yawn, yes yes, those of us who believe in God are deluded and are suffering from mass psychosis whilst all atheists are much better people for not being duped into following a religion.

Erm yes, well he does address that in the book.

Lemonperv

GrizzlyMan wrote: »

Currently reading "the selfish gene" which im enjoying. So will read The God Delusion when im done

Stick with The Selfish Gene - it's his real work.

I thought The God Delusion was great as an 18 year old reading it. But it just was fuelling what I already thought and I don't think I really learned anything from it. Probably more interesting to read if you're more on the fence.

starbelgrade

The only thing worse than a militantly religious person is a militant atheist.

Lemonperv

starbelgrade wrote: »

The only thing worse than a militantly religious person is a militant atheist.

I still think militant religious people are worse. You know, with all the killing 'n' stuff...

Ush1

starbelgrade wrote: »

The only thing worse than a militantly religious person is a militant atheist.

http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/atheists.png?w=373&h=330

MagicMarker

Damn those militant atheists, writing books and forcing people to read them and generally wishing religions would be less imposing on people's lives.

How dare they...

Doctor DooM

starbelgrade wrote: »

The only thing worse than a militantly religious person is a militant atheist.

I keep hearing that, but I've never met a militant atheist in real life. Met plenty of militant religious people though, and some of them have said things I've found morally repugnant.

Penn

Never read it and don't really have any urge to. Might try to read "God is not great" over Christmas ('tis the season) though.

Ush1

Penn wrote: »

Never read it and don't really have any urge to. Might try to read "God is not great" over Christmas ('tis the season) though.

I found the God Delusion a bit more structured in it's approach but both are worth a read.

The Dagda

branie wrote: »

Anyone here ever read Richard Dawkins' famous book on atheism and the dangers of religion?

It's no Fifty Shades of Grey...

conorhal

Lemonperv wrote: »

I still think militant religious people are worse. You know, with all the killing 'n' stuff...

As opposed to those harmeless athiests like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?

Blaming religion for human failings is as lazy as claiming God is responsible for it's graces. Scratch the surface of any religious conflict and mans 'will to power' is as evident in their horrors as they are in any secular conflict.

I think it's time the mods banish all of these kind of posts to the appropriate forum so that we can all get back to insulting each other over more earthly matters....

nozzferrahhtoo

branie wrote: »

Anyone here ever read Richard Dawkins' famous book on atheism and the dangers of religion?

Yes. I would not really recommend it to anyone who already knows the more common and basic arguments for and against religion and god belief.

The book has had it's uses. It helped push atheism into the media consciousness and helped some closet atheists feel ok about coming out.

It is targeted mainly at fence sitters and people who might not know the basic arguments or might be new to the discussions.

So if you are new to the atheism-theism debate then I recommend it heartily. If not then I would advise moving onto something better. Unless you plan to debate the subject in which case it is worth reading so you can recognize the lies and strawmen people make of it when they claim it says things it did not etc etc.

Give philologos a few days to get going and I will happily point out some of these.

philologos

Indeed I think every time atheists bring up religious wars (which were often merely excuses for other aims and ambitions) Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, Pol Pot and others should be brought up and the 100 million lives they killed in a mere few decades.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Indeed I think every time atheists bring up religious wars (which were often merely excuses for other aims and ambitions) Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, Pol Pot and others should be brought up and the 100 million lives they killed in a mere few decades.

Only if you can find a causal link between them and their atheism but I notice despite years of people asking you to do so you have failed not just slightly but entirely... to even begin.

That does not stop you popping up in as many threads as possible trotting out the same line even though you know it is baseless however. You are never one to let facts get in the way of a good catch phrase.

Sofaspud

philologos wrote: »

Indeed I think every time atheists bring up religious wars (which were often merely excuses for other aims and ambitions) Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, Pol Pot and others should be brought up and the 100 million lives they killed in a mere few decades.

And it's always those few names that are brought up, despite there being no links between their atheism and their killings.

But how many hundreds of millions of lives have been taken in the name of religion? Crusades, holy wars, fundamentalist terrorism, suicide-pact cults, "god's voice told me to kill" and the many, many lives taken by god himself if your bible is to be believed?

I haven't read "God is not great" yet, I enjoyed The God Delusion expecting it to be very dry but I actually found it an entertaining read, and find Dawkins to be generally witty and light-hearted. Oddly enough I always think of Hitchens as being the humourless dry one.

SafeSurfer

Sergeant wrote: »

Remember when boards.ie was entertaining and interesting?

No.

Ghost Buster

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Have you read it OP? Please, share your thoughts, in this, the billionth thread about religion in AH in the last week.

Really. Link to more than 3 and you win THE INTERNET.
Then link to other multiple threads about similar topics i.e politics, food, sex, entertainment to lose your prize

Scanlas The 2nd

Plazaman wrote: »

Yawn, yes yes, those of us who believe in God are deluded and are suffering from mass psychosis whilst all atheists are much better people for not being duped into following a religion.

That's about right except I wouldn't say atheists are better people, possibly less susceptible to being brainwashed.

philologos

Sofaspud wrote: »

And it's always those few names that are brought up, despite there being no links between their atheism and their killings.

But how many hundreds of millions of lives have been taken in the name of religion? Crusades, holy wars, fundamentalist terrorism, suicide-pact cults, "god's voice told me to kill" and the many, many lives taken by god himself if your bible is to be believed?

I haven't read "God is not great" yet, I enjoyed The God Delusion expecting it to be very dry but I actually found it an entertaining read, and find Dawkins to be generally witty and light-hearted. Oddly enough I always think of Hitchens as being the humourless dry one.

Considering the USSR had an active policy of discrimination against believers of any faith which was called state atheism, I'd disagree with you. There is plenty of evidence to show a connection between these regimes and state atheism. Yet, I'm also willing to say that most atheists don't stand for that type of treatment.

Likewise, the Gospel doesn't advocate crusading or anything else.

I'd rather that we didn't focus on a stupid argument as to "who killed the most", but in the whole scale of history if we consider politics and nationality and everything else, I suspect more people died for secular causes than out of religious or proxy-religious wars.

Scanlas The 2nd

I never actually finished The God Delusion, gave up about two thirds the way through.

It's like reading a huge book on why water is wet or grass is green. It's too obvious to be that interesting.

9959

Dahlia Spicy Family wrote: »

Ah yes, Dawkins. I'm a big fan. The only living member of the modern-day Holy Trilogy (Dawkins, Hitchens and Darwin). Praise be to Dawkins. Amen.

'Holy Trilogy'?
From one smug basterd to another, do you mean Trinity or possibly Triumvirate?

At least we have the the views of Hitchens on the so called 'New Athiesm', but I would exclude Darwin on the basis that we haven't heard his views on these issues for some time. In fact throughout the 20th century and indeed this one, not a peep.

Step forward Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris who along with Dawkins and Hitchens were occasionally referred to as The Four Horseman of the New Athiesm.

I remember Dawkins being interviewed by Tupridy who finished his 'grilling' with a flourish by asking Dawkins to 'say a prayer for him' as he (Tupridy) went amongst the 'Late Late' audience to distribute K-Tel Bottle Cutters.
Not only did Tupridy think he was being funny but he probably thought he was being original with this side-splitting bon mot, a bit like placing the words Dawkins and Amen beside each other I suppose.

On a side note it's heartening to see that 'Philo' has acknoweldged the existence of the 'humour gene', now if only he'd be so kind as to point us towards The Bible's funny bits

When did Christ the Redeemer ever tell the lads (gender specific) a good joke?
Has the Good Lord ever been reported to have smirked or sniggered at anything?
When listening to a joke did Jesus of Nazareth politely wait for the ending before guffawing unconvincingly even though he - knowing everything- obviously knew the punch line?

These are the questions.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Considering the USSR had an active policy of discrimination against believers of any faith which was called state atheism, I'd disagree with you.

You can "call" it state atheism all you want but what really happened there was not the execution of a state atheism in opposition to religion. It was a state religion in opposition to competing religions.

You are talking about a country where their leaders were thought to be more than human, almost demi gods. Where they claimed miracles of biology and agriculture. Where they engaged in fear mongering and inquisitions to rival those perpetrated by your own religion. And so forth.

Calling any of this atheism is just desperation on your part. Sheer, transparent desperation.

Try for once in your boards career to read the posts by atheists around here instead of hiding from them as you always do. Almost universally they promote equality (sexual, racial, political etc etc), democracy, science, free and open inquiry, freedom of speech, accountability of politicians and much more. And NONE of these things match the history you are pointing at and calling "atheism" in any way at all.

You even wantonly call North Korea an atheist regime. This is just pure comedy from you... or at least it would be if it was not so transparently dishonest. It is a country run by a dead but eternally alive father who came back to earth by semi reincarnating himself through his own son. That sounds less like atheism to me and almost EXACTLY what you Christians promote about these parts. The joke is that you people think this represents some kind of atheist ideal when in fact it is the living execution of the stuff you promote.

ejmaztec

The thing that mystifies me about Richard Dawkins is that his first name is Clinton, yet he uses his middle name as his first name. His dad's first name is also Clinton, and everybody calls him John, which coincidentally is his middle name.

I call it the Clinton Delusion.

Matt_Trakker

Sergeant wrote: »

Remember when boards.ie was entertaining and interesting?

No

dr strangelove

Yep, better love story than Twilight

9959

ejmaztec wrote: »

The thing that mystifies me about Richard Dawkins is that his first name is Clinton, yet he uses his middle name as his first name. His dad's first name is also Clinton, and everybody calls him John, which coincidentally is his middle name.

I call it the Clinton Delusion.

A little curious perhaps, but hardly mystifying.
Believing that the world was created in six days, now that's what I'd call mystifying.

Paul McCartney's first name is James, yet he uses his middle name as his first name. Mad stuff!

branie

And Gregory Peck's first name was Elderd

LivelineDipso

It like polemic but a good read. He loves metaphor.

I hate religion and I do not believe in a God being, at the same time the arrogance of Dawkins and his secular mullahs that they have all the answers is obnoxious. Reductionist science can't even find consciouness and memories in the brain.

I say read The God Delusion and then read The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake and be amazed at how much of Dawkins "facts" are more akin to unproven reductionist dogma.

I read both and I am still open minded and enjoying the endless mysteries of the cosmos and the amazing discoveries of science. It's all good. I do not give a fcuk if there is a God or not as I do not need a sky being to know there is more to my human experience than being a DNA robot. There is something else. I am inclined to believe we are living in a computer simulation of some kind. But I could be wrong.

We keep looking. This is a very interesting interview from a scientist who is an anti-Dawkins type: