So I just started reading The God Delusion..

[Yerda]

What should I expect?

Clear English, assertive statements, light humour and the odd display of literary flair. I doubt it will significantly alter your views on the subject, however. Enjoy.

-Scott

 

[Autodidact]

most religions yes but the Bible is based on fact. Jesus was a true living person . his resurrection has never been disproved. and the history in the bible is backed up like no other book on earth.

Would you care to debate this at length in a separate thread? I'd certainly be up for discussing it.

 

[Autodidact]

Dawkins writes well. He has a nice, light touch. As for his arguments, since I'm an atheist, I'm not a good judge--too biased. I think his arguments have some strength, but, how can I put it, he doesn't quite follow all possible implications of theism.

 

[Darz]

I got about half way through the book and in the amount that I did read he made several valid points.

However, I for one, did not enjoy his literary style. Something about it seemed less professional than what I was expecting. Also, it bothered me how Dawkins so often conjectured what some deceased person would have believed if he/she had lived in this time period. What gives Dawkins the authority and right to speak on behalf of these people that lived many decades and centuries ago? Does Dawkins really think he has their psychology, philosophy, and theology mapped out so conciescly that he is able to accurately speak for them? I honestly found it all a little bit distasteful.

 

[rojse]

However, I for one, did not enjoy his literary style. Something about it seemed less professional than what I was expecting.

If I wanted a professional writing style, I'd go and purchase a university/college textbook. But that's just me.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

However, I for one, did not enjoy his literary style.

I had mixed feelings about that too.
Because he does not write in a standard that fits the science that he so much loves. On the other hand he clearly stated often enough that this was not his intention as pure science simply is a bit too much for most (not in the intellectual aspect but rather also in the "entertainment" factor).
Actually writing a pure science book about that topic is boring for most readers and i must say it is very hard for the author.
I tried that once with a rebuttal to one of harun yahyas books (the evolution deceit).
It is horrible to maintain an objective and rational style while writing about crap.
Its in a way similar to trying to write an essay about the content of a nightmare a 4 year old takes as reality.
Or even in other words ... "the grass is green ... its as easy as that and its nearly impossible to write 400 pages about why it is not and not get frustrated at the guy who came with that idiotic idea that it is blue"

What gives Dawkins the authority and right to speak on behalf of these people that lived many decades and centuries ago? Does Dawkins really think he has their psychology, philosophy, and theology mapped out so conciescly that he is able to accurately speak for them? I honestly found it all a little bit distasteful.

I understand your point. Indeed i see such things sceptical too.
When quoting Russel, Sagan or Einstein however there is not much you can say about it. Anyway ... it doesn't matter because the argument of authority (x said y) is not a valid one.

 

[crystalonyx]

Dawkins writes well. He has a nice, light touch. As for his arguments, since I'm an atheist, I'm not a good judge--too biased. I think his arguments have some strength, but, how can I put it, he doesn't quite follow all possible implications of theism.

Neither do 99 percent of theists.

 

[Luminous]

many valid points, yet valid points do not a [scientific]theory make. There is no reason to believe in the 'God delusion' either way.

 

[curtisloew]

I would just like to say that actually having read the God Delusion and 'The Dawkins Delusion', what we need to realise is that Richard Dawkins is not a theologian. He is a philosopher and as such it is pertinent to remember that he does make crass generalisations. He even makes up excuses for things that he has no idea about...bear that in mind

 

[gnomon]

What gives Dawkins the authority and right to speak on behalf of these people that lived many decades and centuries ago? Does Dawkins really think he has their psychology, philosophy, and theology mapped out so conciescly that he is able to accurately speak for them? I honestly found it all a little bit distasteful.

Any examples of this from the book to elaborate on this "distasteful" style of Dawkins speaking for the dead.

 

[logician]

most religions yes but the Bible is based on fact. Jesus was a true living person . his resurrection has never been disproved. and the history in the bible is backed up like no other book on earth.

Why disprove something that's never been proven?

 

[Luminous]

Why disprove something that's never been proven?

So that people who think it has been proven can get enlightened.

 

[logician]

So that people who think it has been proven can get enlightened.

Does anyone here think the existence of the supposed Jesus has been proven?

 

[Yerda]

Does anyone here think the existence of the supposed Jesus has been proven?

In the atheist discussion forum here the dominant opinion in Jay's thread on the matter was that there probably was probably an historical Jesus (well, Yeshua, if the distinction is important).

See: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/atheism-2/69002-atheist-poll-there-historical-yeshua.html

 

[logician]

In the atheist discussion forum here the dominant opinion in Jay's thread on the matter was that there probably was probably an historical Jesus (well, Yeshua, if the distinction is important).

See: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/atheism-2/69002-atheist-poll-there-historical-yeshua.html

So what, that "proves " nothing. There really is no independant historical evidence whatsoever that the man even lived that is not considered to be a forgery. No writings "by" the supposed Jesus, no real extra-biblical support at all. If that's "proof", it's the flimsiest sort that there can be. It is certain that a man that fits the gospel stories (did miracles etc.) did NOT exist.

 

[Luminous]

well he is mentioned so much in the gospels (evidence) which means he probably did. so did gilgamesh, hercules, and everyone else who has been metioned in paper (L.R.R. Hood.)

 

[logician]

well he is mentioned so much in the gospels (evidence) which means he probably did. so did gilgamesh, hercules, and everyone else who has been metioned in paper (L.R.R. Hood.)

The gospels are NOT a historical record of any sort because

1. The authors are unknown.

2. They were written well after the time of the supposed events they recorded, i.e. they are hearsay at best, and fiction at worst. The exact dates they were written are unknown.

Generally, to be a historical record, the author must be known, and it's more reliable if the date written is known.

 

[Charity]

The gospels are NOT a historical record of any sort because

1. The authors are unknown.

2. They were written well after the time of the supposed events they recorded, i.e. they are hearsay at best, and fiction at worst. The exact dates they were written are unknown.

Generally, to be a historical record, the author must be known, and it's more reliable if the date written is known.

Most authors weren't known until they wrote their first book or text.....
If the date a historical event was written is after the date the event happened does that mean it isn't reliable? And even if is dated does it make it true fact?
The authors of the declaration of Independence were not known as authors when it was written does that make it any less true?
What about the works of many authors whose works were not published until their death, does that alter the fact that they were indeed great contributions to literature?
When Francis Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner, we have the date and the reason he wrote it but do we really know that he wasn't watching fire works at a 4th of July picnic and was inspired to write what is now our National anthem and supply false information surrounding it's origin?
Just wondering with what yard stick you use to measure truth and fiction?

 

[crystalonyx]

Most authors weren't known until they wrote their first book or text.....
If the date a historical event was written is after the date the event happened does that mean it isn't reliable? And even if is dated does it make it true fact?
The authors of the declaration of Independence were not known as authors when it was written does that make it any less true?
What about the works of many authors whose works were not published until their death, does that alter the fact that they were indeed great contributions to literature?
When Francis Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner, we have the date and the reason he wrote it but do we really know that he wasn't watching fire works at a 4th of July picnic and was inspired to write what is now our National anthem and supply false information surrounding it's origin?
Just wondering with what yard stick you use to measure truth and fiction?

You can't be serious, the authors of the Declaration all have many independant historical records of their own records and accomplishments, plus most WROTE many books, articles, letters themselves. The date of the writing of the DOI is well known, there simply is no comparison.

 

[Princess Of Peace]

I would just like to say that actually having read the God Delusion and 'The Dawkins Delusion', what we need to realise is that Richard Dawkins is not a theologian. He is a philosopher and as such it is pertinent to remember that he does make crass generalisations. He even makes up excuses for things that he has no idea about...bear that in mind

Dawkins isn't a philosopher, he is a scientist