the God Delusion/God is Not Great

[gnomon]

Still trying to get a free copy of that book...
Anyone have any ideas? (And I do not like libraries, if I read a book I intend on owning it. It drives my wife crazy)

You might find a decently priced copy at a library sale. Personally I avoid the library sales near me due to the frenzied nature of these things described by my coworkers. If you are not their in the first few hours you miss all the good material. If most libraries are like the Cobb system, they are usually inundated with donated books they do not really need. There's a good chance to find a copy for change at one of those things.

 

[richardlowellt]

Then I think you misunderstand science.[/QUOTE]No more than you, and have you read his book? If not I'm not interested in you refuting something you are not familiar with.

 

[Apex]

No more than you, and have you read his book? If not I'm not interested in you refuting something you are not familiar with.

It did not stop dogsgod.

 

[dogsgod]

How did you interpret that from my statement? We could explain every little thing about the universe, and how it functions, and still not prove that God does not exist. It is impossible. You can't prove the non-existence of something.

OK, but since there is nothing for God to do it's pointless to ponder its existence. God can not be distinguished from nothingness.

 

[dogsgod]

And this is where you go wrong and why you seem to be unable to look at both sides of the equation. You automatically dismiss one half, no questions asked.

No questions asked? Are you serious? Do you honestly think I never questioned religion? I had a religious upbringing. Must you be reminded that most atheists were once believers?

 

[Sententia]

I sense some hero worship...

I have only reviewed a book I found entertaining. You act as if I read his books religiously and attend atheist church every sunday reciting his works of fiction to learn lessons by allegory in order to get into first class heaven and preach his works overseas and door to door.

Oh wait. :run:

hee hee.

 

[Tiapan]

His arguments did seam more or less sound, however as the first poster mentioned it was obvious he had an axe to grind. The same arguments made from a person who seemed more impartial to the issue would ultimatlely carry more weight. I prefered Stephen Hawking's "A brief hitory of time" in which he states "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" (pp. 156 - 157). A curious statment to be sure.

I see nothing curious about Hawkings statement in fact I see it as totally correct. a cyclic universe would have no beginning or end,answering the most profound question "Where did it all begin" in the negative because it didnt, so a creator has no place, or meaning. People seem to have the impression that prior to the big bang the big singularity just sat there for eons bubbling away until some event eg god triggered the big blast. This is not necessarily so, the singularity may have been the momentary transition from a collapsing previous universe immediately back into an expanding one as soon as some sort of critical mass was reached. Evidence is said not to exist, of this prior time, as everything measurable can only be determine back to the big bang, however I would postulate that evidence does exist and it is angular momentum.

Cheers

 

[Falvlun]

No more than you, and have you read his book? If not I'm not interested in you refuting something you are not familiar with.

My beef wasn't with the book. It was with the subtitle. The subtitle, quite frankly, is incorrect. Science can not prove that God-- or anything else for that matter*-- does not exist.

*Of course, specific claims about such a being could be demonstrated to be untrue/impossible.

OK, but since there is nothing for God to do it's pointless to ponder its existence. God can not be distinguished from nothingness.

Agreed.

But being pointless does not equal not existing.

Technically, a kit-kat does not have to exist, and yet it does.

 

[dogsgod]

But being pointless does not equal not existing.

Technically, a kit-kat does not have to exist, and yet it does.

Except the world wouldn't be quite the same without Kit Kat.

 

[Falvlun]

Except the world wouldn't be quite the same without Kit Kat.

Amen to that.

 

[Forkie]

I haven't read "God is Not Great". I find Christopher Hitchens aggressive, obnoxious and arrogant, so I didn't bother with his book.

I do enjoy watching Richard Dawkins talk at conferences. He does it with flair, intelligence and wit so I did read "The God Delusion". His points and arguments were superb, everything you'd expect from him, but I detected a lot of anger in his writing which started to grate after a while. So, while it gets the point across, I think it might have been better if he had a punch-bag in his office so he could take his anger out on it in between paragraphs.

 

[Sententia]

Oh please...

Just not to be misunderstood I do not think that mormons are less qualified or less able to argue their point.

Rather its the argument itself that I think is weak and would need as much help as it can get. (Many mormons I think would readily admit that their point of view and religion requires faith to begin with and should not be debated.)

Not to take away from Chris though... Hitchens is also quite skilled at debate.

And though I think such a debate would be entertaining It would be more so as a round table with many key atheists, religious leaders and an official moderator.

Much like the US presidential debates a live worldwide debate of various religions with world wide experts would be most awesome.