Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?

[paarsurrey]

How do you know? What if there is - by some faintly remote chance - a god, who chooses to communicate with us through the medium of gravity waves? Perhaps this god's test is that he won't speak to his creations until they've learned enough about the universe to detect gravity waves?

Why is my speculation any less valid than yours?

I made no speculation. It is mentioned in the truthful Revelation.
Regards

 

[icehorse]

I made no speculation. It is mentioned in the truthful Revelation.
Regards

Well then, my holy book disagrees with your holy book. In MY holy book, god is speaking to us, and our scientists are still looking for how to receive his message. MY book says than when we have learned enough about our amazing universe, god will send us a message.

MY book is more plausible than your book

 

[paarsurrey]

Well then, my holy book disagrees with your holy book. In MY holy book, god is speaking to us, and our scientists are still looking for how to receive his message. MY book says than when we have learned enough about our amazing universe, god will send us a message.

MY book is more plausible than your book

One is simply wrong. Science does not know as to how to define G-d what to speak of as to how He conversed with the prophets/messengers of G-d. Right? Please
Regards

 

[icehorse]

One is simply wrong. Science does not know as to how to define G-d what to speak of as to how He conversed with the prophets/messengers of G-d. Right? Please
Regards

We both have opinions, neither of us have evidence. I think my claim is a bit more plausible than your claim, but in the end, neither of us can prove our opinions.

 

[paarsurrey]

We both have opinions, neither of us have evidence. I think my claim is a bit more plausible than your claim, but in the end, neither of us can prove our opinions.

But the Revelation rejects one's stance altogether while science does not support it in any way. Right? Please
Even Dawkins could not give any, not even one, positive and reasonable argument in favor of "no-god" position/no-position. Right? Please
Regards

 

[icehorse]

But the Revelation rejects one's stance altogether while science does not support it in any way. Right? Please
Even Dawkins could not give any, not even one, positive and reasonable argument in favor of "no-god" position/no-position. Right? Please
Regards

Hi paarsurrey,

I'm not sure I understand this post, could you try to say this a different way? Let me share one thing with you, scientists have been pointing radio telescopes at the stars for many years now, hoping to find a signal from an alien race. What if they found such a signal, and it was from god? If the maker of the signal could prove that he was god, the scientists would support it? Would you? Even if this god disagreed with the revelation in your book?

 

[psychoslice]

But the Revelation rejects one's stance altogether while science does not support it in any way. Right? Please
Even Dawkins could not give any, not even one, positive and reasonable argument in favor of "no-god" position/no-position. Right? Please
Regards

Of course he didn't, because there is no argument of god, what is there to argue about if there is no god ?.

 

[paarsurrey]

Of course he didn't, because there is no argument of god, what is there to argue about if there is no god ?.

Then Dawkins should not have written the book. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Muffled]

Then you will only ever have laymen writing books against religion.
The fact that Dawkins in depth knowledge of science (or certain areas of science) has led him to conclude that no god exists. His science background elevates him above layman

I believe God is far elevated above Dawkins and his scince is useless if it can't perceive the truth.

 

[Altfish]

I believe God is far elevated above Dawkins and his scince is useless if it can't perceive the truth.

I'm pleased for you.
Science explains the world, science advances humans, you would not be on this forum if it wasn't for science.

 

[psychoslice]

Then Dawkins should not have written the book. Right? Please
Regards

That makes no sense.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
But the Revelation rejects one's stance altogether while science does not support it in any way. Right? Please
Even Dawkins could not give any, not even one, positive and reasonable argument in favor of "no-god" position/no-position. Right? Please
Regards

Hi paarsurrey,

I'm not sure I understand this post, could you try to say this a different way? Let me share one thing with you, scientists have been pointing radio telescopes at the stars for many years now, hoping to find a signal from an alien race. What if they found such a signal, and it was from god? If the maker of the signal could prove that he was god, the scientists would support it? Would you? Even if this god disagreed with the revelation in your book?

The phenomenon of Revelation does not come into the jurisdiction of science.
Regards

 

[icehorse]

paarsurrey said: ↑
But the Revelation rejects one's stance altogether while science does not support it in any way. Right? Please
Even Dawkins could not give any, not even one, positive and reasonable argument in favor of "no-god" position/no-position. Right? Please
Regards

The phenomenon of Revelation does not come into the jurisdiction of science.
Regards

That's not necessarily true! Science looks for understandable, verifiable, repeatable, predictable EVIDENCE. If ANY revelation starting producing such evidence, scientists would look into it.

 

[viole]

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

Well, no matter what religion you belong to, you are logically forced to consider delusional the majority of the world population, that lives or lived, for not believing it. And this because no religion holds the absolute majority of the shares. Obviously.

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, no matter what religion you belong to, you are logically forced to consider delusional the majority of the world population, that lives or lived, for not believing it. And this because no religion holds the absolute majority of the shares. Obviously.
Ciao
- viole

So, one agrees that the book "The God delusion" is the delusion of its author. Right? Please
Regards

 

[viole]

So, one agrees that the book "The God delusion" is the delusion of its author. Right? Please
Regards

Nope. He just goes one God further than you.

Because, as I said, you also must think that the majority of believers (who do not believe in your God), are deluded.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have not read it. Probably he dealt with popular religion and whatever definition for God he found most convenient to dispel. So he probably found a particular delusion and then claimed everyone had it. It is called generalization and sells books well, but I think despite selling a lot of books he failed to change any minds.

His earlier book "The Selfish Gene" is terrific and is not about religion. Everybody should read chapter 2 at least. He's very good at discussing biology and demonstrating how evolutionary principles are attested to by nature. This book really influenced my acceptance of evolutionary theory.

 

[paarsurrey]

Nope. He just goes one God further than you.
Because, as I said, you also must think that the majority of believers (who do not believe in your God), are deluded.
Ciao
- viole

I don't agree with one. Belief in "No-God" is delusion and superstition as it is neither supported by Revelation nor by science. Please
Regards

 

[Furball]

Even as an atheist, I found the god delusion to be boring. Letter to a Christian Nation was far better. The god delusion was written from a scientist's as well as critical thinker's point of view. Could it have been better written? Obviously. There are much better books out there. As other's have pointed out, it doesn't say anything new and I am not sure why it was a best seller. If I had read it back when I was a christian, it wouldn't have done anything to erode my faith. -peace

 

[icehorse]

I don't agree with one. Belief in "No-God" is delusion and superstition as it is neither supported by Revelation nor by science. Please
Regards

Do you believe in "no-unicorns"? If so, does that make you delusional?