Dawkins - 'The God Delusion'

Crash, not really.....you aren't really getting what Hindus believe. Hindus believe in God, some say gods and some say all the gods are but facets of one divine. The Hindu of reality is opposite of what someone like you, being a rationalist materialist denying the spiritual dimension thinks.

Hrm, seems like they're having some difficulty coming to a consensus within the religion about that. Wasn't that my point in the first place? That's my point, Rand. Not only is it the opposite of what I have learned about the universe, it's the opposite of what other religions hold true about the universe.You're aptly proving my point, Randman. There's zero emerging consensus among the religious on these issues, but the consensus among atheists is clear - there are no gods.Thanks for the discussion. It was particularly nice of you to switch sides right at the end there and help me prove my point.

Crash, actually if you look at the spiritual mechanics within most religions, they is a remarkable level of agreement on certain aspects, and there is widespread agreement in the world that world is created.Additionally, if you ask scientists whether there is a God or not, there is disagreement there as well, right?Does that make science invalid?Does that mean there is no God?Crash, what you fail to realize is that science is limited by technology, and science moreover is often wrong. In fact, we can say with a great bit of certainty that many widely accepted ideas in the scientific community are wrong and scientists in the future will say they are wrong. That's historically been shown to the case.So the fact that science works by concensus is absolutely no guarantee scientists are correct. Your claims and analysis really fall apart upon close examination.

Sigh. Randman, I did warn you that I would seek moderator attention if you continued to repeat false claims. You'll find my request for same in the general moderation thread subsequent to this message.We dealt with this. Many religions propose an eternal world. That which is eternal, as you surely must recognize, cannot be created. Your argument is false. It's incumbent upon you either cease repeating it or advance new information to support it. These comments are completely off-topic and irrelevant to my argument. They constitute a smokescreen to avoid rebuttals, another violation of the forum guidelines that I'll be sure to bring to moderator attention.Honestly, RM, I'm surprised. For all that you talk about evos violating the guidelines I would have thought you'd be more interested in showing the rest of us that you could follow them yourself.

Since you continue to demonstrate little understanding of the guidelines around debate and an inability to stick to topics or more importantly take a hint when I have restricted your access further. You no longer have book nook access (nor the coffee house).

We are only talking about the religions which believe in a universal Divine Deity, aka: "Creator."The point which you seem to continually miss is the common denominator: Creator (whoever and whichever) is responsible for the production of reality. This is the common denominator of agreement. Not true as argued above. Illogical.Theists and Atheists (antonyms) disagree. IF they do not then one is not genuinely as such, and we are talking about worldviews here and not anything else like social issues, politics etc.etc. Theism is the belief that a universal Deity created the world and life as we know it and is knowable intruding into the affairs of mankind. Deism believes the same except the Deity is not knowable and does not intrude into the affairs of mankind.Atheism denies the existence of the supernatural.Your blue box comment says absolutely nothing since the common denominator of atheism (see above) was never in dispute.Perhaps I have misunderstood.May I also point out that most evolutionists *claim* to be theists.Ray

Why are we only talking about those? I wasn't. Upon which there is no agreement. You call him "Creator". Muslims call it "Allah." The Jews speak of "Jehovah." You can't even agree on his name! The most basic characteristic of someone, and you can't even agree amongst yourself what it's supposed to be. Theism isn't the only kind of religion. Your attempt to draw a dichotomy is fallacious. Indeed. That's rather the point, isn't it? It rather looks like you did. I don't see the relevance. Not everybody sees courageous, honest inquiry into the universe as something worth doing as more than a day job.

I said "we" meaning Randman and I.The point is that there is universal agreement between many religions: reality was made by A Divine Deity. You have misunderstood.Name is not at issue, function is. That function (universal Creator) is a common denominator belief of many religions - not a matter of opinion.Ray

It's not clear to me what authority you and Randman have in this thread to dictate the terms of the discussion.This isn't the Showcase, Herp. You're not the master here. Try to remember that, ok? Many religions, sure. Randman disagreed with you - he asserted all religions. He was, of course, wrong, as you agree.But that proves my point. There's no universal consensus among religions - but all atheists agree, there are no such things as gods.

Deliberate gross misrepresentation = disappointing way of indicating a loss of interest in the issue or subject.Usually, persons who do not want to discuss things do not create a post.Ray

Really?Tell me, Herp - what does a mad scramble to change the subject rather than face a rebuttal mean? You know, like you just did? (I'm guessing - inability to refute. Just off the top of my head.)

Alister McGrath has written a book critiquing Dawkin's book.The Dawkins Delusion? - WikipediaHere is a quote from this entry in wiki;

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This from another critique which makes some of the same points about Dawkins rant-rather-than-reason approach in The God Delusion. I was hoping to read well structured argument with a view to getting a look at the chessboard from the opponants side. And learnt again not to judge a book by its cover. full article here

As near as I can tell, scientists seem to be divided into two camps concerning the interplay between science and religion.One camp believes that education is the answer, and proponents are people such as Lawrence Krauss, Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, and Richard Dawkins, current holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and author of the book that is the subject of this thread.The other camp believes that while education is important, the key concern is that scientists do not give religion the proper consideration or respect, and this results in a critical lack of understanding that dooms any efforts at conciliation. I won't provide specific examples of proponents, but they tend to be in the soft sciences like experimental psychology.But most important in all this is that the first camp, the one that thinks its just a matter of properly explaining science, is divided into two sub-camps. One sub-camp wants to develop an open and ongoing dialog, the other sub-camp holds religious believers in strict contempt and wants to bulldoze them into the ash heap of history.Dawkins belongs in the second sub-camp, and this is why he brings such embarrassment upon the scientific community. He long ago noted that his temperament is inappropriate for the task he has set himself, and why he's doing it anyway is both a mystery and a tragedy.--Percy

Education is considered to be the answer by many Theists as well. Certainly McGrath would fall into this category.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.