Disappointed by the God Delusion

[LuisDantas]

So from what I'm reading ,even atheists feel the book is a load of bollocks.

No, it is just not al that sophisticated. But it is basically correct. Just not aimed at convincing believers.

 

[Demonslayer]

So from what I'm reading ,even atheists feel the book is a load of bollocks.

Atheists have this remarkable ability to read a book about atheism and judge it objectively.

Unlike the adherents to the holy books who have to pretend their tomes are perfect in every way, despite elements of despicable immorality, violence and preposterous supernatural tales of giants, talking serpents and fire breathing dragons.

 

[Revoltingest]

So from what I'm reading ,even atheists feel the book is a load of bollocks.

Or some of us have no opinion because we never read the book.
Why on Earth would I want to read a book debunking belief in gods?
I was born not believing, & just remained that way.

But I do know some lapsed Catholics, who because of their own
switch to atheism, find the whole conversion discussion interesting.

 

[YmirGF]

So from what I'm reading ,even atheists feel the book is a load of bollocks.

Not at all. It's a fairly good read, but neither a definitive work on the topic or Dawkin's best effort. Is this a problem?

Oh and as far as being an atheist. Most of my path was determined by heavy doses of critical thinking. That is mainly why I have a rather dismal view of Islam because it fails, on so many levels, that it really doesn't even make it to the sacred smell test.

For me, I began to start laughing when I read about the "Night Flight" and Muhammad haggling with god. Um, yeah, right.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

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?

A valid argument for what? An atheist can be someone who just isn't convinced that there is a god(s). I'm not sure that requires an argument.

Also, I'm not so sure that the vast majority of atheists bother with Dawkins or Krauss. Although it seems that a lot of theists believe that to be the case. But oddly enough, the people I see bringing up Dawkins are more often than not, theists.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He (Christopher Hitchens) could not name himelf the name of the book even. I am told that his publishers told him to name the book "God is not great" which suggests that it was intended to be against Quran/Islam/Muhammad. If so, he could not quote anything, even a single verse in his entire book, from Quran, chapter/verse numbers-wise. That speaks of shallowness of his research in religion.
Regards

Were he still alive he would tell you himself that he titled his book "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" because he truly believed that religion poisons everything.

 

[LuisDantas]

So from what I'm reading ,even atheists feel the book is a load of bollocks.

Reflecting on why you would say such a thing, I see fit to point out that you may be coming at it with an unworkable expectation.

As I pointed out yesterday in a new thread about "Trends That I Perceive in Islam", it seems that many Muslims want to frame the "decision" between theism and atheism as a matter of deciding who to trust, or as I saw it described once, "which sources of knowledge" we will choose. The implication seems to be that many or even all people are at least potentially capable of deciding that the Qur'an is "more trustworthy" than, well, anything else, including scientific knowledge.

So, presumably, we atheists would only rarely be all-out kafirs/kuffars ("liars") and far more often just stubborn and/or misguided, "refusing" to give the Qur'an "a fair reading".

That is just not how things work. Most of us are not even particularly seeking external "sources of truth" or anything similar. Many or most of us value skepticism and see it as necessary to attain a degree of trust on our conclusion.

In a nutshell, our expectations and needs regarding atheistic books are simply not that big or that bad. We are not seeking a lot of validation from Dawkins or anyone else. We may easily prefer to decide whether we should validate their works instead. We do not expect so much of his book as to feel likely to perceive it as "a load of bollocks". It is just his views. We can and do disagree with any or all of it without very many consequences at all.

Our atheism is our own. It is sometimes learned, but hardly always or even often.

Quite frankly, most Muslims fail to realize how little respect they have towards atheism, and how bad a flaw that failure is.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ok, let's forget Dawkins for now, what do you think of Kraus? He is an award winning physicist who uses his science to promote atheism? And if you do not listen to any of these people, how did you become an atheist? You must have read some particular work, surely?

No knowledge of Krauss.

To be clear, I was an atheist LONG before I read (or googled) anyone you could loosely consider a promoter of atheism in any modern sense. The foundations of my atheism were originally built on simple life experience, the rejection of the beliefs of those immediately around me, the rejection of the more formalised beliefs of the church I attended, and source material such as the Bible.

In terms of non-Christian religions, I had a very basic grasp on Judaism and Islam (with more exposure to the former than the latter). I also read massive amounts about classical polytheistic pantheons.

Since I was very young (11 or so I guess?) there was obviously a simplistic take on much of this.

Later, writers from the Enlightenment, whilst not atheists, were of interest, as were some Christian philosophers. Mostly I was reading secondary sources here, rather than direct translations or primary material.

Later still, writers like Nietzsche (who I always found hard work to be honest) and other general philosophy were read, but even if you want to count these as sources of atheistic belief, I was well and truly an atheist before this.

Atheistic books...I dunno...
Kai Nielsen and Bertrand Russell were the first couple I read, if I'm understanding your meaning. This would have been approximately 15 years after I started self-idntifying as an atheist.

So...you also asked how I became an atheist. Perhaps it can be somewhat deduced by my answer already? Suffice to say it is because I haven't found any theistic arguments convincing or even (often) consistent. Atheist philosophy really can't say too much, ultimately. It is either highly philosophical or it's refuting claims made by theistic beliefs. Why do I need Krauss to do that on my behalf?

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

No knowledge of Krauss.

To be clear, I was an atheist LONG before I read (or googled) anyone you could loosely consider a promoter of atheism in any modern sense. The foundations of my atheism were originally built on simple life experience, the rejection of the beliefs of those immediately around me, the rejection of the more formalised beliefs of the church I attended, and source material such as the Bible.

In terms of non-Christian religions, I had a very basic grasp on Judaism and Islam (with more exposure to the former than the latter). I also read massive amounts about classical polytheistic pantheons.

Since I was very young (11 or so I guess?) there was obviously a simplistic take on much of this.

Later, writers from the Enlightenment, whilst not atheists, were of interest, as were some Christian philosophers. Mostly I was reading secondary sources here, rather than direct translations or primary material.

Later still, writers like Nietzsche (who I always found hard work to be honest) and other general philosophy were read, but even if you want to count these as sources of atheistic belief, I was well and truly an atheist before this.

Atheistic books...I dunno...
Kai Nielsen and Bertrand Russell were the first couple I read, if I'm understanding your meaning. This would have been approximately 15 years after I started self-idntifying as an atheist.

So...you also asked how I became an atheist. Perhaps it can be somewhat deduced by my answer already? Suffice to say it is because I haven't found any theistic arguments convincing or even (often) consistent. Atheist philosophy really can't say too much, ultimately. It is either highly philosophical or it's refuting claims made by theistic beliefs. Why do I need Krauss to do that on my behalf?

I understand and from what you're saying, particularly the highlighted bit, you are an atheist because you have not found a convincing theist or religious argument. So you atheism is not based on sound science or deduction? And if it is, how did you come across that at the age of 11?

This is what confuses me about a lot of the atheists I have come across. They often say they base their beliefs or understanding on science or something tangible and God isn't but in reality, the answer is usually, "I just never had a religious upbringing or saw some bad practices by bad people and lost my religion". It is not a deductive approach, which is very much the problem with Dawkins and his book.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Atheists have this remarkable ability to read a book about atheism and judge it objectively.

Unlike the adherents to the holy books who have to pretend their tomes are perfect in every way, despite elements of despicable immorality, violence and preposterous supernatural tales of giants, talking serpents and fire breathing dragons.

We live on a rock, suspended in the middle of nothing, circulating a giant ball of fire and giants is your biggest concern?

But back to the book, the problem is, most atheists love quoting dawkins and others and talking about them and now that I've brought up this book and its many contradictions, a lot on this forum seem to be backtracking and saying "no, we never listened to dawkins anyway". I find that all quite funny and definitely not what I was expecting when I made this thread.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I understand and from what you're saying, particularly the highlighted bit, you are an atheist because you have not found a convincing theist or religious argument. So you atheism is not based on sound science or deduction? And if it is, how did you come across that at the age of 11?

*laughs*

Turn it on it's head for a moment, and perhaps you'll better understand my position. Presented with a particular religious experience and understanding at the age of 11 (in my case, the Church of England), I chose to reject it, for many reasons. They were the reasons of an 11 year old, and I'm not claiming they were grand philosophical understandings which have remained unchallenged for the next 30 years of my life. But just as there are plenty of 11 year olds who will tell you with certainty that they believe in God, and explain his nature, I could tell you at the same time that I did not.

(edit : A couple of the thoughts I held towards religion at that age I can remember. One was that not all religions could be true. Therefore each religion could be false, and I would need to work out which was which. Second, people tended to follow the religion of their parents, which was a strange way to determine truth. Third, that people tended to follow religions somewhat...loosely. It suggested to me that most thought their religions MIGHT be true, but that many didn't invest the sort of effort one would if they KNEW it was true. To be clear on this last point, my understanding of religion was fairly literal at that point in my life)

From that point forwards, my understanding of religion, and of various theistic beliefs has increased, and continues to increase. To this point in my life (I am 41) none of the theistic beliefs I am aware of have led me to become theistic. Some I find possible, some incredibly unlikely, but on the balance of evidence as I am aware of it, I remain atheistic.

Was my position at 11 based on sound deduction? Well...humbly, I would suggest it was pretty sound for an 11 year old, but ultimately it was childlike. Perhaps you were a theist at age 11, and remain one now. I don't know, but for the sake of argument I'll assume you have. Does that, then, mean that your current position is not based on sound deduction? After all, it's the 'same' position you held at 11.

Further, you have read an atheistic book, and found it unconvincing, thus leading you to draw conclusions on atheism. Whilst a poor conflation (since an atheistic book can't ever represent 'The atheist dogma') it should at least let you see how the source of my atheism is NOT so much atheist books, as theistic books, and the rejection of them.

This is what confuses me about a lot of the atheists I have come across. They often say they base their beliefs or understanding on science or something tangible and God isn't but in reality, the answer is usually, "I just never had a religious upbringing or saw some bad practices by bad people and lost my religion". It is not a deductive approach, which is very much the problem with Dawkins and his book.

I'm trying to work out how that relates to me. You might need to clarify.
But I was brought up religiously, if in a fairly liberal manner. And I didn't 'lose' my religion due to bad practices, or some traumatic events, or via rage at God for some hardship, etc.
These are all (at least in my case) complete strawmen.

I asked a simple question early in this conversation, but you might have thought it rhetorical. Humour me though. What convinced you not to be Asatru?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But back to the book, the problem is, most atheists love quoting dawkins and others and talking about them and now that I've brought up this book and its many contradictions, a lot on this forum seem to be backtracking and saying "no, we never listened to dawkins anyway". I find that all quite funny and definitely not what I was expecting when I made this thread.

Most atheists?
No...definitely not. You shouldn't confuse the most active atheists in terms of debates, etc with 'most' atheists.
If I were to hazard a guess based on life experience, 'most' atheists aren't actually anti-theists, and a good proportion are more apathetic towards religion than anything.

 

[Sunstone]

The other day, I saw a report that The God Delusion has been translated into Arabic and was uploaded to the internet a few months ago. Since then, it's been downloaded about 10 million times -- mostly to Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

The other day, I saw a report that The God Delusion has been translated into Arabic and was uploaded to the internet a few months ago. Since then, it's been downloaded about 10 million times -- mostly to Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

I dunno how accurate that number is but like I said, the God Delusion is probably the most known book on the subject of atheism.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Most atheists?
No...definitely not. You shouldn't confuse the most active atheists in terms of debates, etc with 'most' atheists.
If I were to hazard a guess based on life experience, 'most' atheists aren't actually anti-theists, and a good proportion are more apathetic towards religion than anything.

I dunno about the rest of what you have written but I do agree with that part. I get along with a lot of my atheist friends and we certainly have some debates on the issue but we never get hostile. I'm glad most atheists aren't out to "kill religion" like Dawkins or Krauss and many others the media enjoys highlighting.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We live on a rock, suspended in the middle of nothing, circulating a giant ball of fire and giants is your biggest concern?

But back to the book, the problem is, most atheists love quoting dawkins and others and talking about them and now that I've brought up this book and its many contradictions, a lot on this forum seem to be backtracking and saying "no, we never listened to dawkins anyway". I find that all quite funny and definitely not what I was expecting when I made this thread.

In all honesty, the people I find quoting Dawkins repeatedly (especially on this forum) are theists.