Which part of the God Delusion did you find most offensive? (beliefs, experience) - Page 19

Azakel · #**181** 05-19-2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logician

I can refute any argument you make for the existence of
some god.

Really, you must not be doing a good job then. All I every see you post in a thread talking about God(s) or anything like is, "Supposed God this, supposed God that". One can hardly call that a refuting argument.

logician · #**182** 05-19-2008, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azakel

Really, you must not be doing a good job then. All I every see you post in a thread talking about God(s) or anything like is, "Supposed God this, supposed God that". One can hardly call that a refuting argument.

You obviously haven't read many of my posts.

BalanceFx · #**183** 05-19-2008, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logician

This simply is untrue.

Its untrue because on page xxx he says yyyy which completely destroys your argument....

Oh... Allow me:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The God Delusion (Page 19)

"Let me sum up Einsteinian religion in one more quotation from Einstein himself: 'To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious.' In this sense I too am religious, with the reservation that 'cannot grasp' does not have to mean 'forever ungraspable'. But I prefer not to call myself religious because it is misleading. It is destructively misleading because, for the vast majority of people, 'religion' implies 'supernatural'."

Again... In the God Delusion Dawkins argues primarily against supernatural, superpowerpowered gods. He also makes a compelling case against religion in general.

Fluffy · #**184** 05-19-2008, 06:04 PM

Wow I think that is the first actual quotation in a thread that specifically asked for them in the OP!

Only took 19 pages!

BalanceFx · #**185** 05-19-2008, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Wow I think that is the first actual quotation in a thread that specifically asked for them in the OP!

Only took 19 pages!

I guess but I'm not offended by the quote. Short of actual physical violence Dawkins would be hard pressed to offend me. Hes a brilliant man. hehe

logician · #**186** 05-19-2008, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Its untrue because on page xxx he says yyyy which completely destroys your argument....

Oh... Allow me:

Again... In the God Delusion Dawkins argues primarily against supernatural, superpowerpowered gods. He also makes a compelling case against religion in general.

If you read the whole book, which I just have, he argues against all god concepts, supernatural or not.

Fluffy · #**187** 05-19-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logician

If you read the whole book, which I just have, he argues against all god concepts, supernatural or not.

Really? I thought he argued that god concepts that were not supernatural were not really god concepts.

BalanceFx · #**188** 05-19-2008, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logician

If you read the whole book, which I just have, he argues against all god concepts, supernatural or not.

The book is sitting in front of me. I have read it. His primary argument is just because we dont know something dont assume god did it. In fact he has many counter arguments to religious arguments as well. Quite numerous.

When I say he doesnt argue against and actually embraces an einsteinan god you also have to understand Einstein was an atheist. Einstein did not believe in a god either. But the beuty and consistency of the universe with all the laws and exacting forumulas that dictate how we exist in it is a beuty to behold and is something we currently dont understand. That is the einsteinian god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The God Delusion

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

It is an overwhelming feeling, one most people learn from a young age to mean God. Dawkins does not believe in god but gets the same feeling. Logically he doesnt assign it to god or any type of mysticism. It is the unknown and we will find an answer... And that answer is most probably not god. (He never says there is no god, he argues against the probability of their being a god and against the ridiculous reasons presented to show that there MUST be a god.) Of course, Dawkins being an Atheist we know he doesnt believe in god but can you prove it? Neither can he... But he can disprove any argument for a god just as you your self have stated you can debunk any proof of a god.

logician · #**189** 05-19-2008, 07:05 PM

Of course he's not arguing against Einstein's philosophy, but he does also argues against pantheistic notions of god which are NOT supernatural. I don't think he likes the term "god" period.

Troublemane · #**190** 05-19-2008, 07:28 PM

I personally dont find Dawkins offensive as much as he is irrelevant. His comments are appropriate from a scientist, though because he tends to flatten the world into a solely materialist paradigm he shows himself to be inadequate to discuss spiritual matters in a mature way. By choosing this course he is simply bound to be an outsider, watching religion from the outside, which can be interesting, but hardly insightful.