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

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

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.

He doesn't believe in the spiritual world nor does he think there is a need to believe in one.

Here is an interview with Dawkins: YouTube - Richard Dawkins Interview - The God Delusion (1 of 2)

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by logician

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.

I'm not sure why your still arguing with me... Dawkins refers to Einsteins religion as a Einsteinian pantheism and of pantheism in general he declares: "Pantheism is sexed-up atheism." (same page as above... Not a lot of research Im doing here in this debate... But you accused me of not reading the book and despite your overwhelming negative attitude towards my original comment which has been abundantly proven by now I myself have not accused you of a thing. I have only defended my point.)

Regarding Dawkins not liking the word god... Well yeah... The problem is there are lots of definitions for god and when people use the word they confuse the theists:

Originally Posted by Dawkins Again, Same Book

I wish that physicists would refrain from using the word God in their special metaphorical sense. The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miraclewreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Perhaps I'm not, or perhaps your emotional reaction to what I say is making it difficult for you to understand what I'm saying.

Or perhaps your self-righteous hostility towards people whom I respect and love is what is causing me to react with emotion. I react with passion when people preach divisiveness. You don't seem to think that affects my reasoning abilities when it's in response to other people's biases; only yours.

Originally Posted by logician

For someone who isn't trying to convince someone of anything, you're on here almost 24/7 not doing it.

You must have a reading comprehension problem. I said I don't try to convince people about the existence of God. When people are drawing lines of "us versus them," you can bet your butt that I try to convince them otherwise. The only things worth arguing about, or "getting emotional" about as MB condescendingly puts it, are things that cause divisiveness, distrust, fear, hate, and harm. Otherwise, you can believe or not believe whatever you want.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Or perhaps your self-righteous hostility towards people whom I respect and love is what is causing me to react with emotion. I react with passion when people preach divisiveness.

Lilithu, I don't understand why you have so steadfastly misconstrued everything I've said, or why you've spent the first part of this thread ranting about what a horrible person Dawkins is and the latter part ranting about what a horrible person I am, but if that's what you need to do, fine. I don't mind anything you say about me.

However, I disclaim responsibility for your decision to "react with emotion" and "react with passion." Even if I had said the things you misrepresent me as having said, and even if I'm all the things you say I am, there is nothing about my grievous character flaws that forces you to lose control of your emotions.

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by lilithu

. The only things worth arguing about, or "getting emotional" about as MB condescendingly puts it, are things that cause divisiveness, distrust, fear, hate, and harm. .

And what would these be?

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Steven Weinberg's statement about religion is sadly true for the dominant religions in the West: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."

The first time I read Weinberg's statement a couple years ago, I quickly dismissed it. Yet, over the past couple of years, I've come to think it has more truth to it than I at first gave it credit for having. I still have some reservations about it, but I've begun to suspect that the competing notion -- the notion that religion doesn't cause anyone to do what they wouldn't do anyway -- is inaccurate.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Regarding Dawkins not liking the word god... Well yeah... The problem is there are lots of definitions for god and when people use the word they confuse the theists:

I wish that physicists would refrain from using the word God in their special metaphorical sense. The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miraclewreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason.

I'm guessing it's not the theists who are confused.