The God Delusion-Richard Dawkins

[alpine_aw11]

Any argument can be persuasive if written well. I've read my fair share of religious and anti-religious literature and they're always hit and miss. I might flip through it the next time I'm at the bookstore, but most of these types of books just spout off the same roundabout justification while throwing mud in as much of a non-offensive manner as possible.

Can you throw us anymore info on this one?

I'm not even halfway through it yet. With most anti-religious texts it deals with just negating any proof, but it goes more in depth than just criticizing the existence of God as a religious person would know. It deals more with the moral aspects and human nature. Another part of it I liked was criticizing the notion that religion can't be criticized, although his goal is clearly to convert people towards atheism it's very interesting regardless of your religious views. Dawkins is very interesting, his perspective is different from the average anti-religous man considering his educational background. I also like him because he recognizes the possibility that god does exist, he just mainly negates God in religous contexts. There is a chapter devoted why God "almost certainly" does not exist but it definitely isn't typical anti-religious rhetoric. It would be worth a try for you I'm sure, but this book probably speaks to me a lot more (no bad intentions from that) than it would to you. My views align with his pretty consistently so that probably makes my perspective a little biased.

[Ran]

I'm not even halfway through it yet. With most anti-religious texts it deals with just negating any proof, but it goes more in depth than just criticizing the existence of God as a religious person would know. It deals more with the moral aspects and human nature.

If it's less on the criticizing part and more of the debate of information and fact then I'm in.

Another part of it I liked was criticizing the notion that religion can't be criticized, although his goal is clearly to convert people towards atheism it's very interesting regardless of your religious views. Dawkins is very interesting, his perspective is different from the average anti-religous man considering his educational background.

I don't see how religion can't be criticized since it happens everyday, but perhaps I'm not understanding the meaning behind that. Any anti-religious text has the same intention just as any religious text does. Anyone that can't accept that notion going into it is ignorant to begin with. Also, more often than not, the writers of such pieces have some sort of educational background. Atheist text written by former church officials, religious text written by college professors, it's nothing uncommon. It does help though.

I also like him because he recognizes the possibility that god does exist, he just mainly negates God in religous contexts. There is a chapter devoted why God "almost certainly" does not exist but it definitely isn't typical anti-religious rhetoric.

Sounds like he's merely padding the attack as to try and not spark any direct conflict. It's also a good way of rallying cautious non-religious readers to reinforce themselves without saying they're completely denying the possibility.

It would be worth a try for you I'm sure, but this book probably speaks to me a lot more (no bad intentions from that) than it would to you. My views align with his pretty consistently so that probably makes my perspective a little biased.

We all have our biased sides. I am pretty accepting of the fact that there is some sort of higher existence such as God, gods, reincarnation, or whatever but am well aware that there are just as many arguments going for it as there are against it. I may actually pick this up and give it a run through. Again, it'll all depend on the delivery of the argument more than anything but, considering your brief synopsis, it sounds pretty interesting. Thanks!

(You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to alpine_xj again.)

[RL...]

I'm not even halfway through it yet. With most anti-religious texts it deals with just negating any proof, but it goes more in depth than just criticizing the existence of God as a religious person would know. It deals more with the moral aspects and human nature. biased.

There is no such thing as human nature. There is only human behavior. Greed, corruption, good and bad, are all things religion teaches us as human nature but these traits are as natural as wearing clothing. Humans aren't born bad, good, evil, corrupt, or so forth. We are as we are because of outside influences that have shaped our personalities. This is the truth, whether you believe it or not.

And all religion is BS. There might or might be some supernatural entity that created everything, that is impossible to prove/dissprove. But religion, especially christianity is joke, and christianity is a rip off of egyptian mythology. Christianity has ripped off of so many religions it's just a big joke. Do some research, it's true.

The ONLY THING RELIGION OFFERS IS INTANGIBLE EMOTIONAL SOLICE FOR THOSE THAT REQUIRE IT, IT SOLVES NOTHING, IN FACT IT DOES QUITE THE OPPOSITE, IT CREATES PROBLEMS.

[civic95]

There might or might be some supernatural entity that created everything, that is impossible to prove/dissprove. But religion, especially christianity is joke, and christianity is a rip off of egyptian mythology. Christianity has ripped off of so many religions it's just a big joke. Do some research, it's true.

The ONLY THING RELIGION OFFERS IS INTANGIBLE EMOTIONAL SOLICE FOR THOSE THAT REQUIRE IT, IT SOLVES NOTHING, IN FACT IT DOES QUITE THE OPPOSITE, IT CREATES PROBLEMS.

Exactly! Any form of organized religion is a fraud. It was merely a form of early government, ethics/morals training, or peace keeping if you will in the days before organized law enforcement. I wouldn't have a problem with people finding solice in it, if it did not generate hatred or superior feelings over people of a different religion or none. There are wars that continue, and have been for decades all because of peoples false beliefs. I'm not saying there isn't a god, or creator but if you believe he had a son named Jesus that was sent to earth you're brainwashed just like millions of other people.

[Ran]

I'm not saying there isn't a god, or creator but if you believe he had a son named Jesus that was sent to earth you're brainwashed just like millions of other people.

Using the term "brainwashed" is a bit harsh and unjustified I think.

Why is okay to accept the belief of a God or gods, but not okay to believe in a divine act or presence? I mean, it's perfectly fine for a deity to create the world and all existing creatures but for him to have a son is just too far fetched, right?