Dawkins - 'The God Delusion'

I think just the fact that a prominent fundie minister (Ted Haggard) would take meth and have sex with men is very telling in itself, along with the fact that so many fundies think that mainstream christianity should set the bar for morals in the country. It is a reflection of their base hypocricy....Or maybe all evos and all christians are not represented by the rabid failings of 1 prominent man in their domain.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

If Haggard remained in the pulpit in his position of authority with the Christian community all behind him, you might have a point. As such, you don't.

what central thesis? You want me to read a book by a total loon?That's how he comes off to me thus far. Maybe there is a sharp mind there, but I kind of doubt it.

Why don't you read it and find out? Dawkins isn't a loon; he's a widely respected figure in the sciences.But from where I'm sitting, trashing a book you won't even read = inability to refute.

Exactly. He is widely respected despite arguing that science means a rational person must be an atheist. You prove my point.

It leaves them in the same place as the Muslims or any other revelatory faith which believes that a Divine Deity created reality.Ray

From where I sit, that respect is steadily slipping with each of his non-scientific diatribes. To me it is very odd and unsettling that so many people are willing to hold up Dawkins' scientific work and respect as a valid reason to endure his preaching on religion and philosophy.I attempted to read his book and found it annoying, insulting, and at times illogical - and to a great extent I agree with him. (So I didn't get very far... feel free to dismiss me as you like).In any case, I am a scientist, and I do not respect the what and how of Dawkins' recent behavior, and I personally know of several other scientists who feel the same.I've heard exaltations from them along the lines of "What the hell is Dawkins thinking?" So perhaps he is a loon...

Again, book title ("The God Delusion") tells us that Dawkins is arguing that anyone who believes in God is deluded.Could we expect an atheist like Dawkins (or yourself) to believe anything else?Ray

I don't know that anybody is. I think his arguments against religion stand on their own merits, and I invite anybody to refute his book with an argument that isn't basically "but nonsense can make us feel so good!"Dawkins makes another point that I've never seen anybody rebut - if you're a person who's committed to rational inquiry in their lives and not just in their day jobs as scientists, it's impossible for you to be anything but an atheist. That's 100% true, as near as I can tell. I'm not an atheist because I want to be; I'm an atheist because, rationally, that's what's true about the universe.Perhaps there are those who don't agree. Well, too bad. Try not losing the debate sometime. That it's time to realize that religion isn't something that gets a pass just for being a religion. PS, have you read at all the dialogue ongoing between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan? You can see it here: Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan on Faith, Religion, Tolerance, Moderates, Bible, God, Islam, Atheism, Jesus, Christian Nation - BeliefnetThe vast majority of religious narratives are based on events that, we can rationally conclude, did not occur. That it's considered "crazy" to point out something so obviously true is a sign of how religion has perverted the thinking of even those who aren't terribly interested in it.Statements offered as fact that are actually nonsense are rightly decried by reasonable people - unless, for most people, those statements are labeled as "religious." Dawkins point is that there's no reason for religion to get a pass on being false, and I find myself in complete agreement.

Well, it just so happens that Haggard's position is hypocritical while Dawkins is not. That doesn't change the fact that people invalidly use the Haggard scandal to pain a bleak picture of Christianity in the same way you are invalidly using Dawkin's atheism to associate atheism with evolution.You would also probably object to me labeling the ID movement as Christian when I point out that the majority of proponents of ID are Christian who also write about ID as it related to Christianity. So what?Dawkins is an athiest who believes in evolution. That does not make evolution athiestic any more than painting stripes on my volvo makes it a racecar.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Atheism is irrational since any objective description of physical reality must conclude that an invisible Divine Deity is responsible.You are blind grinding an absurd axe.RayEdited by Herepton, : No reason given.

Haggard's position is not hypocritical. His message is not hypocritical in other words. His behaviour was. That's a big difference.Imo, Dawkins' comes close to being hypocritical in his message in that he claims objectivity. The fact he is so well-respected in the evo community is a testament to the lack of objectivity within the evo camp.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. One proof of this is that, while none of the religions can agree on the nature, purpose, personality, name, or even number of your supposedly "invisibe divine deities", all atheists come to the exact same conclusion about the number of gods that exist - zero.

As I stated earlier - I haven't read the whole book so I won't pretend to be able to mount a completely informed attack on the subject. But a few comments, of course: Actually, from my view of the label "atheist," atheism is as irrational as theism.But from what I've read, and heard, from Dawkins, he seems to almost intentionally play fast and loose with terminology. When Dawkins says "atheist", he actually means "agnostic." And when he says "atheist" while meaning "agnostic", it seems to be in reference to the popular monotheisms (who I realize are the subject of his attack). That's nothing more than a cheap-shot, a claim that the only reason a scientist could doubt Dawkins' logic, veracity, or methods is out of blind respect for religion.If you do not think it is possible for people to disagree with Dawkins for any other reason, then perhaps Dawkins is your God.I haven't read the dialogue - yet - thanks for the link. I agree completely (at least with literal readings). I agree completely. I agree completely, but is that really "Dawkins' point"?Somewhere in there he said the existence of god is a scientific hypothesis, and that is bullshit. That it's considered "crazy" to point out something so obviously true is a sign of how science has perverted the thinking of even those who aren't terribly interested in it.

Crash, there is widespread and overwhelming agreement that there is a Creator, and so you are just wrong. If we are to judge by conscensus, as science does, then we have to say the concensus is that there is a God.The fact there are differences in theological understandings of God is to be expected since the physical evidence for a Creator does not necessarily explain some of the other aspects of God, except that God possesses beauty, perfection, divine wisdom and power, etc,...