Disappointed by the God Delusion

[Sapiens]

Show me where Dawkins knows anything about Mesopotamian languages and I'd be impressed, otherwise he's a delusional fool suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect

That goes for anybody taking his side

Tell me, please, the argument(s) for monophyletic vs polyphyletic origins for the Pinnipedia based on a comparison of the cladistics of: the paleontological and current basio-cranial osteological evidence of carotid and jugular circulation; the imuno-distances; and genetic findings. Otherwise, issuing challenges to debate authorities on books you not read suggests that you're a ... suffering from...

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

I've read The God Delusion and enjoyed it, it put into words many thoughts I'd been having. Along with Sam Harris' End of Faith, I think it is the best read for people who think they may be an atheist.
It makes more sense to me than any religious text that I've ever read.

There seems to be a lot of bad feeling in the earlier posts I assume because of the success of this book and the likes of Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Kraus, etc.

What bits did you find enjoyable?

And what makes so much sense? The scientific basis of his argument, as presented by this book (only a small portion of it, largely the book is his own musings and philosophical/moral ideas) that God does not exist is evolution. However ,he goes onto admit evolution can not explain much of cosmic phenomena...all in the same book. Then, in later interviews, he has stated evolution can not disprove God. So why is he using it as his primary explanation for there being no Godi n his most popular publication? How do you come to terms with that?

Btw, my only bad feeling with the book is that I did not find it intellectually challenging. I've actually had better constructed pro atheist arguments put forward by 22 year old university students.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Why would you be disappointed? Surely you didn't expect philosophical sophistication from the new atheist movement.

People like Nietzsche, Freud, Russell, or my personal favourite John Gray (Straw dogs, The silence of animals, The soul of the marionette) have written far more interesting things regarding belief. The main difference is that they start with a purpose other than to say 'God doesn't exist and theistic religion is really bad so these religious people are stupid'.

Books written with the purpose of promoting atheism from a shallow rationalist perspective tend to be massively dull and, at best, give a new analogy to the world but never a novel thought.

But my philosophical disappointment is only part of it and I agree, other writers would be better for that. But Dawkins is a leading scientist promoted by one of the leading theoretical physicists on the planet (Kraus) and his scientific arguments are all "yes this may have hapened -= God doesn't exist...but it doesn't necessarily prove anything". The man is contradicting his own scientific points. So what exactly is the basis of this best seller? It's not intellectual thought or philosophy or science.

 

[Pudding]

Then why would someone be an atheist if no one can or should present a valid argument?

(capital God is omitted because it's superfluous to write God/god instead of god. God is including in god)

Negative/weak/agnostic atheist don't need to present the evidence or valid argument that every god doesn't exists. They don't believe any god exists, they also don't claim every god doesn't exists nor they believe every god doesn't exists.

While positive/strong atheist (who believe every god or "the god other theist preach to him" doesn't exist) does have the burden of proof to prove those god doesn't exists if they wish to convince anyone to believe them.

The burden of proof also belongs to theists who claim god exists and wish to convince atheists to believe them.

After the theists have present their arguments and evidence in supporting of their god's existence in an attempt to convince atheist, then atheist will examine those arguments and evidence, if it's convincing then atheist will probably believe; if it's unconvincing then atheist explain why it's unconvincing.

Simply write "atheist" in your question is misleading, because agnostics atheist (who is also an atheist) don't believe every god doesn't exists neither do they believe any god exists.
It's the strong atheist who believe god doesn't exists.

I'm an agnostics atheist (who is also an atheist), because the arguments and evidence provide by theist to prove their god's existence in the situation when they wish to convincing me to believe them, is unconvincing to me or i haven't been convince by them.

I don't need to provide argument or evidence for any god's non-existence before i can disbelieve them. Those theists who claim their god exists and wish to convince me to believe them, they bear the burden of proof to prove their god's existence, not me to prove their god's non-existence.

Btw, you may be in the minority as an atheist who does not bother with Dawkins or Krauss but the vast majority of atheists do and by your own admissions, their arguments aren't great, so what would you say to such people?

Please provide your statistics that majority of atheists agree most of or everything what Dawkins says in his book, and minority atheist disagree with most of or everything what Dawkins says in his book.

 

[Augustus]

"yes this may have hapened -= God doesn't exist...but it doesn't necessarily prove anything". The man is contradicting his own scientific points. So what exactly is the basis of this best seller? It's not intellectual thought or philosophy or science.

From my recollection (my memory isn't great though), he is making the argument that it is very unlikely that God exists as he maintains you can't 'prove' a negative. So despite not being able to prove God doesn't exist, that doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe He does exist.

So his thesis is why you shouldn't believe in God's existence rather than this is the proof of God's non-existence. Then he makes some simplistic arguments about why belief in God is 'bad'.

My recollection might be a bit off though.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

From my recollection (my memory isn't great though), he is making the argument that it is very unlikely that God exists as he maintains you can't 'prove' a negative. So despite not being able to prove God doesn't exist, that doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe He does exist.

So his thesis is why you shouldn't believe in God's existence rather than this is the proof of God's non-existence. Then he makes some simplistic arguments about why belief in God is 'bad'.

My recollection might be a bit off though.

No no, you are right but it's all so flimsy and if anyone believes in this mans "arguments" that person can not be taken seriously.

I think he does believe in God but his bad past experiences in a Christian household makes him WANT to not believe in God.

 

[Onoma]

I'll tell you what, I'll do you one better

I'll start a thread on Mesopotamian languages and we can discuss the origin of the " Holy Spirit " in Mesopotamia

Except I won't use diacritical marks, so you'll have to actually use your knowledge of Mesopotamian languages to follow along

Feel up to the challenge ?

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

(capital God is omitted because it's superfluous to write God/god instead of god. God is including in god)

Negative/weak/agnostic atheist don't need to present the evidence or valid argument that every god doesn't exists. They don't believe any god exists, they also don't claim every god doesn't exists nor they believe every god doesn't exists.

While positive/strong atheist (who believe every god or "the god other theist preach to him" doesn't exist) does have the burden of proof to prove those god doesn't exists if they wish to convince anyone to believe them.

The burden of proof also belongs to theists who claim god exists and wish to convince atheists to believe them.

After the theists have present their arguments and evidence in supporting of their god's existence in an attempt to convince atheist, then atheist will examine those arguments and evidence, if it's convincing then atheist will probably believe; if it's unconvincing then atheist explain why it's unconvincing.

Simply write "atheist" in your question is misleading, because agnostics atheist (who is also an atheist) don't believe every god doesn't exists neither do they believe any god exists.
It's the strong atheist who believe god doesn't exists.

I'm an agnostics atheist (who is also an atheist), because the arguments and evidence provide by theist to prove their god's existence in the situation when they wish to convincing me to believe them, is unconvincing to me or i haven't been convince by them.

I don't need to provide argument or evidence for any god's non-existence before i can disbelieve them. Those theists who claim their god exists and wish to convince me to believe them, they bear the burden of proof to prove their god's existence, not me to prove their god's non-existence.


Please provide your statistics that majority of atheists agree most of or everything what Dawkins says in his book, and minority atheist disagree with most of or everything what Dawkins says in his book.

That's the same type of fluff which Dawkins uses, just read back what you have written. It doesn't even make sense. Buut hey, I'm not here to convince you, I'm just stating his book was poorly written and poorly constructed. Let me know if you think otherwise.

As for the statistics, do you deny that Dawkins and Krauss are not the two primary voices of modern atheism? I most certainly believe they are, from what I've seen, heard and read. There of course, has never been a survey done on who atheist like the most lol

Having said that, the success of their literature, videos, live appearances, conferences and so on goes to show they have a significant following. Again, it's up to you to believe that or now, I'm not here to prove their popularity, any idiot living in the west can see it with their own eyes.

Now, the most damning piece of evidence for their popularity is the "scientific", philosophical or moral/intellectual arguments of pro-atheism and anti-religion pushed forward by these guys are the same arguments used by most atheists, including the people on here, including yourself. Your entire first 2 paragraphs fit into the Dawkins brief of "say some intellectual sounding jargon and make it sound really factual".

Heck, Dawkins in a video went so far as to say evolution does not disprove God but if you are using science as a tool to "kill religion" and are preaching to people who don't quite know what they want/need, then you can use evolution to disprove God, i.e. prey on peoples naivety. That's pretty devious and his most famous book is pretty devious too.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That's the same type of fluff which Dawkins uses, just read back what you have written. It doesn't even make sense. Buut hey, I'm not here to convince you, I'm just stating his book was poorly written and poorly constructed. Let me know if you think otherwise.

As for the statistics, do you deny that Dawkins and Krauss are not the two primary voices of modern atheism? I most certainly believe they are, from what I've seen, heard and read. There of course, has never been a survey done on who atheist like the most lol

Having said that, the success of their literature, videos, live appearances, conferences and so on goes to show they have a significant following. Again, it's up to you to believe that or now, I'm not here to prove their popularity, any idiot living in the west can see it with their own eyes.

Now, the most damning piece of evidence for their popularity is the "scientific", philosophical or moral/intellectual arguments of pro-atheism and anti-religion pushed forward by these guys are the same arguments used by most atheists, including the people on here, including yourself. Your entire first 2 paragraphs fit into the Dawkins brief of "say some intellectual sounding jargon and make it sound really factual".

Heck, Dawkins in a video went so far as to say evolution does not disprove God but if you are using science as a tool to "kill religion" and are preaching to people who don't quite know what they want/need, then you can use evolution to disprove God, i.e. prey on peoples naivety. That's pretty devious and his most famous book is pretty devious too.

You ever going to actually reply to what's being said or just reassert the same strawman over and over?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is one of the most famous, if not THE most famous atheistic book of modern times. So, a few months back, I decided to read it and I was utterly disappointed. Not as a muslim but as a person of intellect (a minor intellect but intellect nonetheless lol). Dawkins preface is curious, he talks about some of the chapters in his book and the ultimate aim is to move people away from being religious or even being kind towards religion and towards a complete, hard atheism.

Yet he fails to live up to that preface AND his own title. There is only 1 chapter dedicated to the scientific counter arguments towards God (hinges mainly on evolution) and the rest of the book is curious devoid of science but filled with Dawkins own personal views or philosophical ideas he has come up with...yet he initially claims philosophy is flawed and in the past allowed the propagation of religion. So which is it?

It's this lack of clear thought, this confused way of thinking that really disappointed me. Dawkins is an acclaimed scientist, an academic and the voice of atheism but this is the best he could come up with? Especially considering he talks endlessly about evolution but he himself admits that evolution does not equate to there being no God This is like a toddler constructing a whinge, not a well thought out, academic argument.

Has anyone else read this, if so, what were your thoughts?

Sorry, haven't read it. Apart from one or two biological arguments he's raised over the years, Dawkins is a non-entity in terms of my world view. Good luck to him, though, he as entitled to commercial success as anyone else.

I did want to clarify, though...
He's not 'the voice of atheism'. Rather, he is an atheist with a large number of followers. He doesn't speak for me, and I know plenty of atheists who wouldnt know who he was (in RL I mean...I would guess most internet atheists are well aware of him)

 

[freethinker44]

This is one of the most famous, if not THE most famous atheistic book of modern times. So, a few months back, I decided to read it and I was utterly disappointed. Not as a muslim but as a person of intellect (a minor intellect but intellect nonetheless lol). Dawkins preface is curious, he talks about some of the chapters in his book and the ultimate aim is to move people away from being religious or even being kind towards religion and towards a complete, hard atheism.

It has been a while since I read that book, but I don't believe his ultimate aim was to move people away from being religious. In fact, if I remember correctly, he even says somewhere in the book that his primary audience is atheists, not religious people, and he isn't trying to convince anyone against religion but if it happens then that's great. Also, I don't believe he was arguing towards a complete, hard atheism, and in fact says he, himself, is not a hard atheist.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Sorry, haven't read it. Apart from one or two biological arguments he's raised over the years, Dawkins is a non-entity in terms of my world view. Good luck to him, though, he as entitled to commercial success as anyone else.

I did want to clarify, though...
He's not 'the voice of atheism'. Rather, he is an atheist with a large number of followers. He doesn't speak for me, and I know plenty of atheists who wouldnt know who he was (in RL I mean...I would guess most internet atheists are well aware of him)

Which makes him one of the pre-eminent voices of atheism. Your personal like or dislike of him isn't really relevant to his own success or to his importance to atheism, which is obviously great.

Having said that, if it's not Dawkins, if it's not Kraus, then you do you read and learn from with regards to atheism?

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

It has been a while since I read that book, but I don't believe his ultimate aim was to move people away from being religious. In fact, if I remember correctly, he even says somewhere in the book that his primary audience is atheists, not religious people, and he isn't trying to convince anyone against religion but if it happens then that's great. Also, I don't believe he was arguing towards a complete, hard atheism, and in fact says he, himself, is not a hard atheist.

Complete opposite of his own words in his own introduction. Taken straight from the second paragraph of his book:

"
I suspect – well, I am sure – that there are lots of people out there
who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy
in it, don’t believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in
its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents’
religion and wish they could, but just don’t realize that leaving is an
option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended
to raise consciousness – raise consciousness to the fact that to be an
atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You
can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually
fulfilled. That is the first of my consciousness-raising messages."

Now, even if the book was just for atheists, as you thought it was, it would be a pretty big "face palm" moment. If I was an atheist and I read this book, I'd be even more disappointed than I am right now.

And what do you mean he is not a "hard atheist"? The guy has professed that he wants to "kill religion", if that's not hard then I am terrified to meet an actual hard atheist.

Either way, it does not negate from the popularity of the product he is selling and the fact that many atheists in this thread have said his arguments aren't all that good, yet a lot of laymen atheists believe in them. That too is scary.

 

[Pudding]

That's the same type of fluff which Dawkins uses, just read back what you have written. It doesn't even make sense. Buut hey, I'm not here to convince you, I'm just stating his book was poorly written and poorly constructed. Let me know if you think otherwise

Explain which part of my post is the same type of fluff which Dawkins uses.
Explain which part of my post i have written doesn't make sense, explain why you think it doesn't make sense.
Don't just making ambiguous claims.

Strawman:
Never have i say you're here to convince me.
Never have i say you're not stating his book was poorly written and poorly constructed.

As for the statistics, do you deny that Dawkins and Krauss are not the two primary voices of modern atheism? I most certainly believe they are, from what I've seen, heard and read. There of course, has never been a survey done on who atheist like the most lol

Having said that, the success of their literature, videos, live appearances, conferences and so on goes to show they have a significant following. Again, it's up to you to believe that or now, I'm not here to prove their popularity, any idiot living in the west can see it with their own eyes.

So you don't have statistics but only unsubstantiated speculation? If that is the case i'll remain skeptic to your unsubstantiated speculation until you substantiate it.

Any people in the west is idiot if they don't believe your unsubstantiated speculation?

Now, the most damning piece of evidence for their popularity is the "scientific", philosophical or moral/intellectual arguments of pro-atheism and anti-religion pushed forward by these guys are the same arguments used by most atheists, including the people on here, including yourself. Your entire first 2 paragraphs fit into the Dawkins brief of "say some intellectual sounding jargon and make it sound really factual".

Please provide the statistics of the global atheists that majority atheists agree most of or everything what Dawkins says in his book, and minority atheists disagree with most of or everything what Dawkins says in his book.

You don't have statistics, you have unsubstantiated speculation.

Please explain how my entire first 2 paragraphs fit into the Dawkins brief of "say some intellectual sounding jargon and make it sound really factual" and explain why you think so in order to make your statement less ambiguous.

Heck, Dawkins in a video went so far as to say evolution does not disprove God but if you are using science as a tool to "kill religion" and are preaching to people who don't quite know what they want/need, then you can use evolution to disprove God, i.e. prey on peoples naivety. That's pretty devious and his most famous book is pretty devious too.

Please don't bring up irrelevant stuff and stay focus to reply to what i say in my post.

 

[George-ananda]

As an eastern/Hindu proponent and a student of paranormal phenomena, I see no evidence that Dawkins has much knowledge of these subjects (they're not his bag). To me, he just beats a dead horse on the problems with Christianity and the Abrahamic God.

 

[freethinker44]

Complete opposite of his own words in his own introduction. Taken straight from the second paragraph of his book:

"
I suspect – well, I am sure – that there are lots of people out there
who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy
in it, don’t believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in
its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents’
religion and wish they could, but just don’t realize that leaving is an
option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended
to raise consciousness – raise consciousness to the fact that to be an
atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You
can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually
fulfilled. That is the first of my consciousness-raising messages."

Right, he's targeting closeted atheists, telling them they don't have to be unhappy in religion, they can be happy as atheists.

The reason so many people don't notice atheists is
that many of us are reluctant to 'come out'. My dream is that this
book may help people to come out. Exactly as in the case of the gay
movement, the more people come out, the easier it will be for others
to join them.

He's not targeting people convinced of their religion, as he says:

Of course, dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument,
their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination
using methods that took centuries to mature

And what do you mean he is not a "hard atheist"? The guy has professed that he wants to "kill religion", if that's not hard then I am terrified to meet an actual hard atheist.

The typical definition of a "hard atheist" is someone who believes there are no gods. This is not Richard Dawkins. He believes there are probably no gods. In his book he gives a spectrum from 1 to 7 of the two extremes, one end strong or hard theism and the other end strong or hard atheism, and puts himself at a 6. Which is:

I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable,
and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.

Either way, it does not negate from the popularity of the product he is selling and the fact that many atheists in this thread have said his arguments aren't all that good, yet a lot of laymen atheists believe in them. That too is scary.

He's not very good at debate in my opinion, and he's also not that popular among atheists. New Atheists maybe, but they aren't popular among atheists either.

 

[Sapiens]

...
And what do you mean he is not a "hard atheist"? The guy has professed that he wants to "kill religion", if that's not hard then I am terrified to meet an actual hard atheist.

A hard atheist is one who "knows" that there is no god.

Dawkins describes himself (as I would myself) as being a "6.9" He makes that point that no scientist or skeptic could ever profess to be 100% sure of anything.

Either way, it does not negate from the popularity of the product he is selling and the fact that many atheists in this thread have said his arguments aren't all that good, yet a lot of laymen atheists believe in them. That too is scary.

Right, he's targeting closeted atheists, telling them they don't have to be unhappy in religion, they can be happy as atheists.

He's not targeting people convinced of their religion, as he says:



The typical definition of a "hard atheist" is someone who believes there are no gods. This is not Richard Dawkins. He believes there are probably no gods. In his book he gives a spectrum from 1 to 7 of the two extremes, one end strong or hard theism and the other end strong or hard atheism, and puts himself at a 6. Which is:


He's not very good at debate in my opinion, and he's also not that popular among atheists. New Atheists maybe, but they aren't popular among atheists either.

I was unaware that there was a large organized body of atheist that expressed its likes and dislikes, and I've been an atheist as long as I can remember, and (at least) my parents, grandparents and those great grandparents that I had the pleasure of knowing.

 

[metis]

Let's forget all that but have you read his book? My point is, he can't string together a coherent argument, it's almost as if he can't even grasp his own mother tongue. Honestly, it really is that bad. He contradicts himself continuously and yet has argued for years that religion is contradictory and that he believes in something superior. A scientific argument, well thought out by an academic of his stature, should not be so...fluffy.

Yes, I read it maybe 4 or so years ago. He's very intelligent but also quite headstrong, so I can't quite agree with you entirely. He's been on Bill Maher's "Real Time" a couple of times and pretty much came off the same way.

Harris' book on pretty much the same subject was much better, imo.

 

[sayak83]

This is one of the most famous, if not THE most famous atheistic book of modern times. So, a few months back, I decided to read it and I was utterly disappointed. Not as a muslim but as a person of intellect (a minor intellect but intellect nonetheless lol). Dawkins preface is curious, he talks about some of the chapters in his book and the ultimate aim is to move people away from being religious or even being kind towards religion and towards a complete, hard atheism.

Yet he fails to live up to that preface AND his own title. There is only 1 chapter dedicated to the scientific counter arguments towards God (hinges mainly on evolution) and the rest of the book is curious devoid of science but filled with Dawkins own personal views or philosophical ideas he has come up with...yet he initially claims philosophy is flawed and in the past allowed the propagation of religion. So which is it?

It's this lack of clear thought, this confused way of thinking that really disappointed me. Dawkins is an acclaimed scientist, an academic and the voice of atheism but this is the best he could come up with? Especially considering he talks endlessly about evolution but he himself admits that evolution does not equate to there being no God This is like a toddler constructing a whinge, not a well thought out, academic argument.

Has anyone else read this, if so, what were your thoughts?

I agree, its his most disappointing book. His books on evolution are excellent.
But its catchy and controversial, and apparently only catchy and controversial stuff sells. Its unclear what he added in terms of actual substance over Bertrand Russel for example.

 

[sayak83]

I don't think that's what he was saying.

Many of the arguments in the God Delusion are very well presented and nearly indisputable. The best part, IMO, was the refuting of this idea we hear religious folks claiming, that the complexity we see in nature couldn't just arise out of chaos.

His presentation of two simple ideas to me very clearly discredit this idea. These two ideas are 1) a being powerful and intelligent enough to create everything would have to be more complex than the creation, and 2) how the 'crane' of evolution builds complexity through natural selection.

But Dennett does it so much better in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". Its a sustained look at the reason why evolution demolishes the argument from design in the world of biology. Dawkins is absolutely spectacular in explaining complex ideas of evolution with clarity and vibe, less so in extending the implications on a worldview frame.