'The God Delusion' Has anyone read it?

[lpounds]

‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins.

I am interested in picking it up. Has anyone read it that can report with their thoughts and feelings?

Is it a worthwhile read?

[Michaelgoround]

Here’s what wikipedia has to say. I may pick up this book just to see what an atheists thinks.

[lpounds]

This part in the WIKI text on the book interests me especially:

Dawkins had long wanted to write a book openly criticising religion, but his publisher had advised against it. By the year 2006, his publisher had warmed to the idea. Dawkins attributes this change of mind to “four years of Bush”

[pkittle]

Haven’t read it, but I believe Dawkins was the originator of the terms “meme” and “memetics,” in reference to a sort of cultural equivalent to genes and genetics. His work has been pretty influential in some academic circles. Probably worth reading.

[JJuggle]

I read and thought very highly of it. It is well written, informative, well organized, and for one already an atheist, compelling. Whether it has actually changed any minds, I don’t know. I doesn’t rely on miracles.

It has been discussed on these forums elsewhere if you’re interested in digging around for what’s already been said when it was fresher in the minds of those who’ve read it.

[lpounds]

Thanks, will do.

[mr_charm]

@JJuggle

I read and thought very highly of it. It is well written, informative, well organized, and for one already an atheist, compelling. Whether it has actually changed any minds, I don’t know. I doesn’t rely on miracles.

It has been discussed on these forums elsewhere if you’re interested in digging around for what’s already been said when it was fresher in the minds of those who’ve read it.

Check your link, it says nomatches found when i click on it…

[mornish]

I read about half of it before it mysteriously disappeared.

It’s great!

[glen]

I remember being a bit dissappointed because it was all old news to me, but I imagine it’s a good introduction to a lot of the arguments floating around. Some might find Dawkins a tad abrasive, especially theists.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

It’s a bit spiteful which works against actually converting anyone. The points are all quite valid though.

[Seager]

That’s one thing I’ll give apologists over atheists - they are better converters.

I read A Case of Easter by the guy who wrote A Case for Christ, and while it was full of half truths, fallacies, and general hogwash the author was very welcoming and nice. He came off as the kind of guy who you’d like to have a beer with and who’d probably help you move even if he’d just met you. I wanted to dislike the guy, but I just couldn’t. Also, I think he believes the stuff that he wrote and I can’t dislike a guy for that. I don’t think his fallacies are on purpose but instead are the fault of his zealousness.

Dawkins, however, is kind of a jerk - and while I agree with him, I have no desire to ever meet or hang out with him. We Atheists need our own Barak Obama, we just aren’t going to get anywhere with this guy. Heck, many of us don’t even like him, of course he won’t be able to speak to the theists out there.

[kington99]

@Seager

Dawkins, however, is kind of a jerk - and while I agree with him, I have no desire to ever meet or hang out with him. We Atheists need our own Barak Obama, we just aren’t going to get anywhere with this guy. Heck, many of us don’t even like him, of course he won’t be able to speak to the theists out there.

I have met, and to some degree ‘hung out’ with Dawkins. His persona is somewhat different from that projected in the media, including his own books, he’s a nice guy to chat to.

[UniGeezer]

Yes. It really makes you think, which is a good thing.

[BillyTheMountain]

@kington99

I have met, and to some degree ‘hung out’ with Dawkins. His persona is somewhat different from that projected in the media, including his own books, he’s a nice guy to chat to.

i hear he supports China, where the atheists don’t give freedom to practice religion to anyone, and send all christians to re-education camps.

[Michaelgoround]

My friends in China I wonder if he went to the olympics.

[BillyTheMountain]

@Michaelgoround

My friends in China wonder if he went to the olympics.

the atheists gave Dawkins a special invitation, and greeted him with open arms. he took a tour of the re-education camps filled with christians, and they asked him to teach the christians correct thinking.

[Seager]

^ Citation Needed ^

China is new more representative of Atheists as Bin Laden is of Muslims or Phelps is to Christians.

[hobo_chuck]

@Seager

^ Citation Needed ^

China is no more representative of Atheists as Bin Laden is of Muslims or Phelps is to Christians.

yup.
Or Hitler is to Christians.
Here’s my citation, too.
I changed my first citation because it was too biased. Good ol’ wikipedia.

[feel_the_light]

I think he’s famous for 2 ideas

More or less

1. Religion is a mental disease that spreads like a virus. It can’t be found in the natural world, you have to catch it from other people by trusting their logic.

2. The Flying spaghetti monster rebuttal. One thing all atheists get tired of hearing, over and over again from holy book fans, is some version of this pronouncement.

“Here is a missing link !, this fossil is fake ! Carbon dating is flawed !” Then in the next breath they clutch their book to their heart and smile, like they have just proved something. In religious debate, any flaw in the evidence for evolution, is perceived by the faithful as evidence for their book.

Is there an atheist in the world who hasn’t had a friend or relative, or ass hole at the door say smugly in their face, "O K, then you tell me where life came from ! " ?, as if such a statement can only rationally lead to an assumption that bronze age literature was inspired by an all powerful deity.

Dawkin’s famous rebuttal was that flaws in our knowledge can just as rationally be explained as the work of a flying spaghetti monster.

Basically, if the fact that we have not yet created a cell from scratch, or proven the absolute origin of anything means the bible must be true, why doesn’t it also prove that any other religion is true ? The flying spaghetti monster is as likely to have answered your prayer as Jesus.

I don’t think he’s all that offensive. I have gone further myself on many occasions.

For instance, there is the "believing in Jesus is low class stupid " argument. What is so offensive about taking up this as a talking point, is that it’s so painfully true. Even worse, people are religious because they care about what other people think, making this argument especially painful, and only fit for tasering door knockers.

Basically, ask your proselytizer to explain why you have noticed that religious people are stupid ! The more education people have, and the more income they have, the less likely they are to believe in the bible. Conversely, the prisons are full of people mumbling to god before they go to the shower.
If the bible is true, why do the stupid people embrace it enmass, while no one talks about it at the national academy of science? What is so ungodly about thinking well that causes the vast majority of high IQ people to abandon religion at a young age ? In any other field in life, the smart people have done so well.

Dawkins will tell you holy book loving is a virus. He doesn’t tell you what that virus may cause.

[BillyTheMountain]

@feel the light

More or less

1. Religion is a mental disease that spreads like a virus. It can’t be found in the natural world, you have to catch it from other people by trusting their logic.

2. The Flying spaghetti monster rebuttal. One thing all atheists get tired of hearing, over and over again from holy book fans, is some version of this pronouncement.

“Here is a missing link !, this fossil is fake ! Carbon dating is flawed !” Then in the next breath they clutch their book to their heart and smile, like they have just proved something. In religious debate, any flaw in the evidence for evolution, is perceived by the faithful as evidence for their book.

Is there an atheist in the world who hasn’t had a friend or relative, or ass hole at the door say smugly in their face, "O K, then you tell me where life came from ! " ?, as if such a statement can only rationally lead to an assumption that bronze age literature was inspired by an all powerful deity.

Dawkin’s famous rebuttal was that flaws in our knowledge can just as rationally be explained as the work of a flying spaghetti monster.

Basically, if the fact that we have not yet created a cell from scratch, or proven the absolute origin of anything means the bible must be true, why doesn’t it also prove that any other religion is true ? The flying spaghetti monster is as likely to have answered your prayer as Jesus.

I don’t think he’s all that offensive. I have gone further myself on many occasions.

For instance, there is the "believing in Jesus is low class stupid " argument. What is so offensive about taking up this as a talking point, is that it’s so painfully true. Even worse, people are religious because they care about what other people think, making this argument especially painful, and only fit for tasering door knockers.

Basically, ask your proselytizer to explain why you have noticed that religious people are stupid ! The more education people have, and the more income they have, the less likely they are to believe in the bible. Conversely, the prisons are full of people mumbling to god before they go to the shower.
If the bible is true, why do the stupid people embrace it enmass, while no one talks about it at the national academy of science? What is so ungodly about thinking well that causes the vast majority of high IQ people to abandon religion at a young age ? In any other field in life, the smart people have done so well.

Dawkins will tell you holy book loving is a virus. He doesn’t tell you what that virus may cause.

the IQ controversy is cultural bias and racism cloaked in science.

please don’t tell me you truly believe in IQ! Hah!

oddly enough, it’s always the high IQ people who think IQ is so damn important

why is that?