Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheism "they ask the right questions"

It is the most easiest thing to be on the side of the asking questions.

Asking question is simple. But asking the right questions is not. That is a key word missing from your re-statement of @Sunstone's point.

I does not mean that no-god position/no-position is right?

Nope, it does not.

Dawkins should have provided positive, reasonable and justifiable reasons/arguments.

What was your opinion of his arguments when you read it?
For example, what do you think about the arguments regarding unintelligent design?

 

[YmirGF]

"It is his own opinion"

Um, everyone has the right to their opinion, @paarsurrey or are you pretending that they do not?

And it remains a wrong opinion.

According you and many other less than stellar thinkers.

The book is not a book of science. Is it? Please
Regards

No one has ever claimed it was a science book, I haven't and neither has Dawkins.

Exit question: @paarsurrey have you actually read The God Delusion?
The entire book, not just one or two words on the cover...

 

[Aštra’el]

I highly respect Dawkins, and I particularly enjoy listening to him speak about the subjects he is passionate about. Despite his blatant anti-theistic perspective, I find him to be incredibly insightful, and have nothing negative to say about him.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?
“The God delusion” is a book written by Richard Dawkins as a lay man.
Is it based on Revelation or on Science? Or it consists on the delusion of the author, please.
Does one agree? Please

Regards

It is excellent that Dawkins as a scientist has put together something that reflects his beliefs. Its good to be passionate about something and it is a very well thought out book. I couldn't read for too long as it bored me witless. I tried. It just didn't resonate. But then the words of Faith attract me more than those of the materialists.

On the other hand philosophers and writers of the West have written accounts in favour of God that don't touch the heart either.

At the end of the day people of faith must distinguish themselves through deeds first and words second. If their inner lives do not reflect the best of their Holy teachings then the word God is empty and religion is in vain.

The problem for Western people of faith is that there is often little to distinguish those who have faith and those who do not.

 

[paarsurrey]

It is excellent that Dawkins as a scientist has put together something that reflects his beliefs. Its good to be passionate about something and it is a very well thought out book. I couldn't read for too long as it bored me witless. I tried. It just didn't resonate. But then the words of Faith attract me more than those of the materialists.

On the other hand philosophers and writers of the West have written accounts in favour of God that don't touch the heart either.

At the end of the day people of faith must distinguish themselves through deeds first and words second. If their inner lives do not reflect the best of their Holy teachings then the word God is empty and religion is in vain.

The problem for Western people of faith is that there is often little to distinguish those who have faith and those who do not.

"At the end of the day people of faith must distinguish themselves through deeds first and words second."

I agree with what I have colored in magenta.
Regards

 

[Dawnofhope]

"At the end of the day people of faith must distinguish themselves through deeds first and words second."

I agree with what I have colored in magenta.
Regards

Then its is excellent we agree on 10%.

I have coloured your words gold because I believe that colour also reflects your heart. Truly!

Sometimes like your golden words they are hard to see. But we must see the gold and beauty in everyone, even those who hold opposing views.

 

[Kemosloby]

No, it's the epidemic of God denial.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, it's the epidemic of God denial.

"Epidemic" is quite the wrong word to use there. Even "denial" is arguable at best.

 

[1robin]

Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?
“The God delusion” is a book written by Richard Dawkins as a lay man.
Is it based on Revelation or on Science? Or it consists on the delusion of the author, please.
Does one agree? Please

Regards

Neither, it was based on the preferences of Dawkins. He should stay in the lab and leave philosophy for those trained in it.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?
“The God delusion” is a book written by Richard Dawkins as a lay man.
Is it based on Revelation or on Science? Or it consists on the delusion of the author, please.
Does one agree? Please

Regards

Dawkins is definitely not a layman. One of the best zoologists alive today.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I may be wrong, but I believe that earthlings with serious problems often turn to religion.
Many inmates of prisons will at their parole hearing claim that that have found god and are born again.
But once they are released they go right back to their life of crime, only much wiser now cos they were taught new tricks while in prison.

Since the 60's I've been hearing that religion is a crutch for poor people (I guess including serious-problem people)
I was in my early 20's when I began reading the Bible. I was happy, healthy, and working with money in the bank.
So, for me, your reasoning does not apply. I know others who were happy people when they turned to the Bible.

True, convicts even use religion as a get-out-of-jail card, but that does Not make the Bible as wrong but them wrong.
That is why they go back to their former life style. They are false 'weed/tares'-type Christians.

Also, we are forewarned by Jesus' recorded words that MANY would come ' in his name ' but prove false.
So, it should Not surprise anyone that the condition that Christendom is in today is mostly Christian in name only.

 

[Tabu]

Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?
“The God delusion” is a book written by Richard Dawkins as a lay man.
Is it based on Revelation or on Science? Or it consists on the delusion of the author, please.
Does one agree? Please

Regards

Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?
“The God delusion” is a book written by Richard Dawkins as a lay man.
Is it based on Revelation or on Science? Or it consists on the delusion of the author, please.
Does one agree? Please

Regards

It is based on his scientific observations, analysis and reasoning (+morally), and He speaks strong against the scriptural representation of God ( mostly Biblical) , an argues how believing in such a God would be detrimental . There are remarkable observations and conclusions he has made throughout the Book , some of my favorite quotes from the book are
“The truly adult view [...] is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it. And we can make it very wonderful indeed.”

“If you don't understand how something
works, never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don't
know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understand
how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis
a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don't go
to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God.”

“Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That's not morality, that's just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base though.”

“Let children learn about different faiths, let them notice their incompatibility, and let them draw their own conclusions about the consequences of that incompatibility. As for whether they are ‘valid,’ let them make up their own minds when they are old enough to do so.”

Having mentioned that I would like to add that , just because certain aspects of God are misrepresented in certain scriptural texts , doesn't invalidate the entire concept of God or make Him a delusion.

 

[Tabu]

Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?
“The God delusion” is a book written by Richard Dawkins as a lay man.
Is it based on Revelation or on Science? Or it consists on the delusion of the author, please.
Does one agree? Please

Regards

Here is an interesting debate between this author and an Arch Bishop , both have presented their views pragmatically and it is for the listener to decide which side scores more.

What I notice is that , in the initial moments the Arch Bishop states that , science cannot give a reason as to why we are here or why there is sorrow and for an answer we need to look into religion , and in the final moments agrees that answering why there is sorrow is the toughest question to answer even for a religious person .

 

[paarsurrey]

Dawkins is definitely not a layman. One of the best zoologists alive today.

One could be specialist in one's own field, but will be definitely a layman in other where one has no specialization. Please

Regards

 

[Altfish]

Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?
“The God delusion” is a book written by Richard Dawkins as a lay man.
Is it based on Revelation or on Science? Or it consists on the delusion of the author, please.
Does one agree? Please

Regards

I found it a very well written book that put into eloquent words many of my own thoughts; it didn't convert me to atheism, I was already one.
There are certainly better ones, I prefer Sam Harris' End of Faith. But Richard Dawkins' book certainly hit the headlines and continues to today.
Why else would someone start a thread to discuss it?

btw What qualification does one require to be able to write a book about atheism and not be labelled as a layman?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?
“The God delusion” is a book written by Richard Dawkins as a lay man.
Is it based on Revelation or on Science? Or it consists on the delusion of the author, please.
Does one agree? Please

Regards

If you disagree with material in the God Delusion, maybe you could quote some of the passages you disagree with as a starting point for discussion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, "existence of G-d" is not a subject of science.

Any verifiable fact about the real world is the subject of science. Doesn't the existence of God imply any verifiable facts about the real world?

 

[David T]

The God Delusion is a largely unoriginal repetition of established facts and well known arguments against -- mainly -- the Abrahamic religions. It's main value seems to me to lie in the fact that it's an easy read that makes the ideas it presents accessible to a wide audience, as evidenced by its best seller status.

The book should not be all that controversial. Miskotte, the Dutch theologian, once said, "Atheists are our natural allies because they ask the right questions". The God Delusion asks many of the right questions, and I think if it's more severe critics were a bit more foresighted than they tend to be, they'd be able to see the advantage to them of that.

how is atheism not as telelogical as religion? And I agree atheism naturally aligns with religion, it's meaningless without religion.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Neither, it was based on the preferences of Dawkins. He should stay in the lab and leave philosophy for those trained in it.

Ya, how dare he think for himself. . . . the nerve of that guy!

 

[David T]

Any verifiable fact about the real world is the subject of science. Doesn't the existence of God imply any verifiable facts about the real world?

Is there a difference between experience and narratives about experience? Would a narrative about the taste of an orange be the actual taste of an orange? Science has a long history of "facts" yet you have made the statement as if scientific facts are some magical universal. That's rather impossible and not even scientific not even historically accurate . Science like theology is not some objective view but an incredibly subjective view in narrative about the world around us. Its great for creating iPhones etc but metaphorically speaking when it is more than that it just becomes religion in New drag. Richard Feynman got this interestingly. Am I saying religion is correct? Hardly and I don't think creationism, theology, imtelligent design etc have have to do with the bible or jesus thatbthey love to profess, other than a lame excuse to create philosophical fantasies. I am all about nature Dawkins clearly is a clueless reductionist.