Dawkins - 'The God Delusion'

This is bushel not light.There is a thread just opened on the subject in order to escape Admin wrath. By all means shine light there.

iano,Yeah, but other peeps KNOW he/she/it/they don't. And not to labour the point, until any of you can provide evidence of your positions you are as bad as each other.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

So as long as the possibility that you are deluded exists, you can not be 100% sure that you are right.
you cannot, in this case, be a '1'

see msg 46. And when you get to the new thread read the link firstEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider to be a proper purpose?We have kids. We care for them and provide for them, which ensures the propagation of our genes. We support the family, even the extended family, with whom we share genes. We contribute to the community, which provides for our offspring which helps to ensure the propagation of our genes. We try to make the world a better place (at least within and for our own society), which helps to ensure the survival and prosperity of related descendents and hence to ensure the propagation of our genes.How could that "hardly be called a 'purpose.'"?

I've had a quick run through the book, and am now having a more leisurely read.
Dawkins' writing is quite clear and entertaining. Something that really got my attention is his section on the horrifying things that fundamentalists are doing to their children ("hell houses" etc), and his assertion that religious indoctrination of children constitutes child abuse.

I do not belive that is a reasonable conclusion. There are many types and degrees of religious indoctrination and they can range from constructive to destructive. I do agree that the current drive of YECs and Biblical Creationists is counter productive to their kids but I don't know if it is child abuse. I would say it is closer to making the kids wear funny looking clothes so all the other kids laugh at them.It is certainly sad because what they are imposing on the kids is not just bad science, it is even worse theology.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What a fascinating selection of words. A Lunatic is literally someone who worships the moon - can't get much more theistic than that.

Actually, no. Knowing he exists for a certainty is also not logically possible. Even if you die, go to heaven, and shake god's hand (right hand if he is really judeo-christian, left hand if he is islamic) you cannot know he exists for certain because there are other possible explanations that don't include the existence of god. Our conscious is just an electrochemical simulation of reality with synaptic proxies for elements of our perceived world. You cannot know for an absolute certainty that you have died, where you may or may not have gone, or who you interacted with. It could all be a dream, an illusion, or perhaps someone else's dream or illusion taking place in a godless world.So you see Iano, it just comes down to what your definition of 'is' is.Regards, AnInGe

I didn't say knowing he exists "for a certainty". I just said knowing he exists is a logical possibility (which involves assuming the obejective reality one exists in is objective)There is a thread on the subject elsewhere with an obvious enough title. Perhaps you can elaborate there on how it is you know our consciousness is as you say it is. With certainty I mean. For without certainty you can stand in the queue along with the rest of us who say we know things.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

If the totality of all that is knowable is finite, then it is logically possible to know that god, or any other element of objective reality, does not exist (if in fact it does not exist). This can be accomplished through the process of exhaustive elimination. If the total of all that is knowable is infinite, but is countably categorizable, then again it is logically possible to know that god, or any other element of reality, does not exist. If you think you understand what I just said and it sounds reasonable to you, you need to get away from these forums for a long rest.

that book's on my shelf right now, on load from brenna. i'm gonna read it right after i finish spong's other book. frankly, most of the stuff i've read so far has been rather rudimentary. nothing i didn't know, and in a few instances, knew better.i kind of expected more, i dunno, heated arguments from dawkins, though.

---

Sorry for the push but, The God Delusion is sooo close to being number 1 on all three Amazon stores (is currently at #1 in Canada and the UK, but only #2 in the US) Those of us over at RDF and Rational response Squad are trying to raise some consciousness and see if we can get it to #1 on all three.To that end I humbly ask that if you have not yet bought a copy, but are intending to do so then Please , please do us a huge favor and order it from the US Amazon.com. ( have just ordered two copies my self. They are gonna be gifts when they arrive)Please note I'm not asking you to buy this excellent book if you were not already intending to do so, but if you were to get it now from amazon.com.If we can get Richard to all three top spots then that will be a huge deal for a secularist attack on religion.If you are not indending to buy this book or are other wise not interested then I hope I havent wasted too much of your timeEdited by ohnhai, : siggy

---

Stuff From Ohnhai: Atheist Clothing and things!

There is an excellent ongoing debate on this book at Free Church of Scotland ( Free Church Of Scotland website ).
Take note of "Today's Issues" on the home page ang go to the Message Board. You will find a chapter by chapter critique of TGD which has just reached chapter 3 and there are various threads associated - "Dawkin's Delusion" being the first.Kenny

Well, unfortunately, comments like does not inspire any confidence in the web site's intellectual standards. In actual fact, it has been the arguments in favor of theism that have been pretty well discredited, as well as arguments against secularism and atheism. It is theism, at least the more militant forms of it, that have been on the defensive for about, oh, three hundred years or so.But perhaps you can supply something that would inspire confidence in the intellectual rigor of that site?Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus