The God Delusion - TTLG Forums

the_grip on 23/1/2007 at 18:59

After reading the wiki on this book:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion)

i have to admit that i'm less impressed than i was before. This guy sounds like he has a bone to pick, but it seems like he may have bit off a bit more than he can chew (after reading the reviews at the bottom). It seems that he is favoring his personal bias to dismiss religion without careful analysis. For example:

Quote:

Dawkins begins Chapter 2 by describing Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidical, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Does he go into any kind of analysis, either literary or cultural, of the Old Testament to bolster these claims? Or is this just a broad sweeping generalization? i mean no disrespect to him - in fact, it would be nice if he spent the time to flush out such a criticism so there is material for discussion. Otherwise, he is just hurting his case by revealing a motivating bias.

Also from the wiki:

Quote:

Hence the inability to disprove the existence of God provides no positive reason to believe. Rather, Dawkins argues that the burden of proof is on the advocates of the existence of God.

Who is arguing for the burden of proof? Faith in its very definition requires a degree of trust, albeit hopefully reasonable trust, but i don't claim even to myself to objectively prove God 100% (simply because that's not faith).

Quote:

During the Crusades, "pagans" and "heretics" who would not convert to Christianity were murdered, and other similar examples.

Again, analysis please? Did he fail to mention that the Crusades were meant to stop the political-military-religious freight train of Muslim aggression in the Middle East and hence to hopefully save folks? i'm not trying to say the Crusades were all peachy, but let's keep things in perspective.

Quote:

He equates the religious indoctrination of children by parents and teachers in faith schools to a form of mental abuse. Dawkins wants people to cringe every time somebody speaks of a “Muslim child” or a “Catholic child”, wondering how a young child can be considered developed enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity’s place within it. By contrast, Dawkins points out, no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child".

That is ridiculous, i'm sorry. i see no gain in this line of argument. Does he have even a shred of evidence that is consitent with symptoms of mental abuse to back up this argument? Or is he touting his opinion with strawman language?

Quote:

He argues that an atheistic worldview is life-affirming in a way that religion, with its unsatisfying “answers” to life’s mysteries, could never be.

While i do hope this man finds peace with himself (as he claims to have done), i have to say that proselytizing in this manner makes him come off as trying to force his opinions on someone in the same way a red-faced preacher would.

Anyways, i still plan to read the book (i hope). STD, if you have any clarifications from the book on these points (or any you find relevant), i would appreciate it.

Thanks,
the_grip

jay pettitt on 23/1/2007 at 20:30

Oooh, this old thread.

Yes, Dawkins provides numerous examples of God behaving like a right Twazzock. They're not hard to find.

Good for you. Proud to be wrong. How is trusting in a giant invisible space grandad reasonable?

That's right. The Crusades were nice christian folk saving us from the scary muslim horde. History books are available from the shops.

It's really very simple. Religion is indoctrinated to children because children are vulnerable to suggestion. Here's a clue: there is catagorically no such thing as god. Yet you fall for it hook, line and sinker. Why? Because you were saturated in religion as a child. It's not dissimilar to dirty old men grooming young girls for their nefarious purposes.

Dawkins may be preachy, but he's also on the ball. The universe in all it's scope is mind bogglingly wonderful from the tinyest tiny thing to the universe and all it's processes and beyond. Cower behind a fictitious god if you're scared of it.

Thirith on 23/1/2007 at 21:07

Cool. It's like you read the first post, saw that some people disagreed with the Dawg, skipped the rest of the thread and then made your post as if nothing had been written in the meantime. Glad to know that you like the sound of your typing.

fett on 23/1/2007 at 21:24

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

Yeah, but you see, I was going by the word of the people who claim that the Bible is the unfettered word of God.

The reason I can't debate the God Delusion with you more specifically is because I haven't read it. I think you'd expect me to do so before trashing it - like you've done the Bible. I certainly won't criticize it out of hand based on your word, which is what you're doing with the Bible. Given the general stupidity of the general public about anything requiring more than a 30 sec. attention span, you should take with a grain of salt 'the word' of people claiming the Bible is the word of God and read it for yourself. Pretty big issue for you to take a shortcut on.

paloalto on 23/1/2007 at 22:54

Quote:

Wait, what? Extrapolating a theory from the most probable of a series of explanations doesn't go against the scientific method.

Unfortunately for the question of whether God exists 'from the most probable causes' is a subjective point of view which is definitely not scientic versus a testable question such as the behaviour of noble gases.

Quote:

It's really very simple. Religion is indoctrinated to children because children are vulnerable to suggestion. Here's a clue: there is catagorically no such thing as god. Yet you fall for it hook, line and sinker. Why? Because you were saturated in religion as a child. It's not dissimilar to dirty old men grooming young girls for their nefarious purposes.

When parents teach their children something you don't bieleve in it is called indoctrination.There, I would wager people who have grown up with no uh "indoctrination" and ended up bieleving in God from their own observations not to mention people who have had spiritual experiences which would trump any intellectual argument of Gods existence or not.At least that is true in my case.

jay pettitt on 23/1/2007 at 23:58

You grew up in a religion free society?

Indoctrinate is to instruct a partisan doctrine. Whether or not one believes in the doctrine is irrelevant. I take it you won't be bringing your children up with your religion, confident that they'll be able to make up their own minds as free thinking adults.

fett on 24/1/2007 at 00:07

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

Tell me - what are the statistics? How many currently practicing christians were raised as christians? What percentage of practicing christians converted to christianity in their teens or as adults? What are the reasons for their conversions?

Here's a clue: It's not really very simple. People come to christianity for a WIDE variety of reasons and at every stage of life. Indoctrination is actually the reason for more people who were raised in church leaving than stay- if you look at statistics.

Quote:

That's right. The Crusades were nice christian folk saving us from the scary muslim horde. History books are available from the shops.

I've been fairly civil in this discussion, but pardon me for calling you a fucking idiot if this is the scope of your understanding of the Crusades. Do you also think the primary reason for the Civil War was because the Union thought slavery was evil? :rolleyes:

And btw - this bullshit of throwing up the Crusades to indict modern mainstream (read: not right-wing fanatic) christians is as ignorant as blaming Charles Manson on the Beatles. Study some fucking history or shut the hell up. It's embarrassing.

Ok - I'm going to turn my nice guy switch back on now...:p

Shug on 24/1/2007 at 00:37

Quote Posted by fett

Are you guys planning this, or was that meant to be some kind of double sarcasm?

My brain just exploded

SD on 24/1/2007 at 01:30

Quote Posted by fett

I appreciate the point you're making, but I would certainly guess that the large majority of Christians were raised in the church, and that a small minority actually came to the faith through a free choice from all the options available. It's no coincidence that the prevailing faith in the US is Christianity and in the Middle East it's Islam; if people had a genuinely free choice, one would expect a more even distribution between all of the faiths.

Quote:

I've been fairly civil in this discussion, but pardon me for calling you a fucking idiot if this is the scope of your understanding of the Crusades.

Again, it's a little on the simplistic side, but he's essentially correct. The Crusades were fought mainly in an effort to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims. The more cynical amongst us might note that some things never change.

jay pettitt on 24/1/2007 at 01:45

Quote Posted by fett

stuff

What the hell has statistics got to do with it? Religion is a social tool. The intent of instilling religious docrtine in children is grooming. I'm happy for people move away or move towards religion later in life. I'm less happy about feeding damn lies about the nature of the universe to impressionable minds. I'm inclined to get all irate when the government funds said unhappy thing. Such is Dawkins criticism (which I share) of indoctrinating children, as I was explaining.

Regards Crusades - Well now we get to see the real fett...:eek: Did you miss some nugget of context in your blind fury?

-edit-
To be fair, the_grip did acknowledge that all was not peachy crusadewise - so my jibe was a little unfair, but only a little.