The God Delusion

[Terry]

Almost finished this book and I have to say I loved every page of it. Before picking it up I was waffling between atheism and agnosticism and though I still wouldn't call myself a full blown atheist it's become harder for me to believe in God in any classical sense of the word.

The book basically blows apart most if not all arguments for creationism, as well as the existence of the Abrahamic (or any for that matter) God.

Some of the points he made that I liked:

Irreducible complexity: A phrase creationists love to use, because not only do they think it makes them soud learned, it's a good way to debate without knowing shit about the issue. The argument usually goes like this: Mike sees a dragonfly wing and notices it's intricacy, therefore opining that said wing could not evolve slowly because it is too complex, therefore evolution is false. In reality evolution crafted the wing over millions of years, from when it was a flightless stub to the intricate wing it is today. As Dawkins eloquently puts it "Even a half-developed wing is better than none when falling from a tree" Not to mention the fallacy of such an argument coming from believers in God, the most irreducibly complex being in existence were he real!

Religions' stranglehold on rational thought: Ever tried debating with a zealot? Bring fact after fact to the table and at the end of the day when all his bullshit fairy tale logic loses the day he will claim moral ground by citing his Faith. You cannot seriously debate someone who uses blind belief as an argument in a scientific discussion.

Believing the Young Earth theory is demonstratably ignorant: IF the earth was 10,000 years old and IF evolution did not happen we could not have discovered fission nor the atom. The atomic bomb would have been a dud and we would still be in the dark ages scientifically. Creationists ask why, if evolution is true, can't we find the "missing link"? This is a common debate tactic for these ingrates. They fail to realize only a very small percentage of corpses fossilize, most fossils are still waiting to be discovered, and just because there are gaps in a theory does not render the theory false. Dawkins' calls creationists "worshippers of gaps" because they look for any unexplained aspect in a theory and disregard said theory because of it. This is obviously Bad Science.

Creationists do science backwards. They start with a theory and look for ways to prove it, rather than starting with experiments and drawing theories from them. Pick up this book, be you religious or not. I defy anyone to read it and come back with any arguments for creationism. It's a great eye opener that will open your mind no matter what your beliefs (or like me, lack of belief).

[msicidron]

I agree that creationism, or the story of creation told by some, is a pretty foolish thing to buy into, but seriously...

Shut the fuck up.

You cannot seriously debate someone who uses blind belief as an argument in a scientific discussion.

you can't talk about god with an atheist who thinks that everything can be proved or disproved using their 5 senses and the scientific method alone.

honestly have you not thought about this argument from the other side? or do you just not have the capacity to be spiritual..

(I'm defending god not "creationism" or religion)

[msicidron]

that book is closing your mind, not opening it.

[Xil]

you seem kinda hostile there nord, especially for the one whose saying someone needs to open their mind.

also its completely possible to be spiritual and reject fairy tales such as creationism

[msicidron]

hostility has little to do with open-mindedness...and sorry if it seemed that way.

i'd rather it be taken as 'defensive'.

[Xil]

hostility has very much to do with open mindedness.

And being defensive just points to insecurity of beliefs.

[msicidron]

No, you're too caught up with some of the connotations those words carry.

One can be hostile toward someone else whilst being open-minded and fully understanding another's point of view. In fact, i think one doesnt have the right to be hostile until they have a full understanding and have felt sympathy for whatever it is theyre being hostile towards.

Once again, being defensive means that i am defending a position which i feel is being wrongfully and close-mindedly attacked, kind of like how you're attacking me rather than contributing to this topic.

get off my dick

[Ego Tripping]

I tend to agree with msicidron's particular side of the coin, but yeah, your tact is pretty harsh and you did get on the defensive right off the bat.

I think The God Delusion is a wonderful perspective of the other polar opposite to a book like A Purpose Driven Life. There's pearls of wisdom on both sides.

I find the truth to be somewhere in the grey area, personally.

[Bodhisattva]

"hostility has very much to do with open mindedness.

And being defensive just points to insecurity of beliefs."


not so

survivalist-cults often suggest some importance or advantage in

convincing other, saving them

bypassing words like offensive-defensive and insecurities

truth holders don't have those hang ups

like my blanky when i was a toddler, could give me invincibility when touched, my capabilities, when i touched that blanky, everything i disowned just then, all that sensitivity and discomfort. humanity... you would have been rightfully afraid, if you had known, or you had known better

anyway, dawkins is just a tool, hes smartish i admire that he filled that role that he filled in all this... but i am happy for you terry, that you alone contributed something to your thread, thus far

[msicidron]

lol

[SpankyMcLankey]

jesus I don't even know what to think about this discussion....

basically it comes down to the point that we're all going to rot in the ground.

/thread

[Charley Phogg]

that book is closing your mind, not opening it.

I don't get this one.
The problem with this arguement is that you can't discuss the idea of either "belief" (evolution or God) in the terms of the other. Science demands that you have solid, empirical evidence for your claims. Faith demands that its own belief system CANNOT be proven, and MUST be taken on, well, blind faith. I think Terry said something about the religious arguement of, what was it, "irreducable complexity"? That pretty much hits the spot here.
From an as-close-to-objective-as-possible viewpoint on the matter, an independent observer, examining the evidence on Earth, wouldn't find himself drawing any conclusion that claims that God created Earth. However, examining geological evidence would probably lead to a conclusion that Earth as an ecosystem has evolved over a long period of time.
Just saying, don't try to argue for religion. It can't be done in terms of Western philosophy.

[msicidron]

what i was saying was that while he was saying that the book was opening his mind it was really only helping to close his mind off to thoughts regarding god and spirituality.

^i agree with your entire post, but im not arguing for religion. im arguing for spirituality, which when someone experiences, does not require evidence. im not arguing against atheism either, but for open-mindedness. (which is NOT what this book is promoting)

[Charley Phogg]

^i agree with your entire post, but im not arguing for religion. im arguing for spirituality, which when someone experiences, does not require evidence. im not arguing against atheism either, but for open-mindedness. (which is NOT what this book is promoting)

Whether or not this book represents an open-minded viewpoint isn't really up for debate, I know personally I haven't read it.
But yeah, I totally agree about your spirituality point. I think that the only reason someone should believe in a religion is if they've arrived at that conclusion through their own self-revelations, in actual experiences. And while this DOES represent some people's journey to religion/spirituality, unfortunately I think that MOST religious "believers" probably don't arrive at the worship of any pre-established religion through these experiences, but probably choose to worship a deity based on the culture they're raised in, which isn't really a legitimate reason imo.
I believe in things that cannot be explained by science. But I don't think that in any sort of real debate these phenomena can be argued rationally.

[msicidron]

yeah thats pretty much what ive been trying to say. i cant tell whether you're entire post is in response to mine or not, but if it is than i'm sorry i didnt articulate my thoughts better.

good day to you all, this thread really ought to die..

[SweetSativa]

Well, I'm not Christian... but I'm not atheist.

I just want to point out as a scientists that scientists do science the same way that they say religion does it. They start with a theory and then they set up experiments to test it. They try to be objective and to take measures to maintain integrity but scientists are frustrated at the inability to take the experimenter out of the experiment. We accept certain paradigms because they are the most likely to be true and then we work within that framework. Eventually there is a problem with the paradigm (anomoly) and scientists scramble like mad with new theories and experiments and work frantically until they have a new paradigm and then we experience a paradigm shift...lol. Does this mean that the laws of physics have changed? No, nature doesn't change... so what does? The perception of the scientists change. In fact, most scientists hold so tightly to their paradigm blanky that it takes the old scientists dying off or retiring before the new paradigm is totally accepted. Never confuse science for truth, my friends.

[Charley Phogg]

Well, I'm not Christian... but I'm not atheist.

I just want to point out as a scientists that scientists do science the same way that they say religion does it. They start with a theory and then they set up experiments to test it.

Yeah, but the theory comes from observation on happenings in the world around us. The idea of a Christian God isn't really an assumption about our origins created from looking around us and seeking a rational answer. This is the difference, which for me makes scientific method more legitimate than religious myth.

[al-Mu'akhkhir]

i feel that i should point out that not all christians buy into creationism (just like not all christians are against homosex marriage), and that the naming of book as "The God Delusion" is pretty offensive to basically anyone of any religious domination (not every religion relies on a creationist theorem to explain the Earth)

[verklingen]

terry i always considered you to think much broader than this. dawkins considers a very narrow wavelength of belief. so narrow it practically renders all his conclusions moot.

[Terry]

You know nord it could be argued that it is faith that closes ones mind. The argument that "you must be a bitter fuck with no hopes or dreams or aspirations if you don't believe in god" is tired and simplistic. It suggests we derive our morales from faith in a supreme being rather than our surroundings and upbringing. It suggests that we need some sky fairy to be ever watching us to be good people.

God, in most cases, is a cop out. A coping method for the harsh reality we as humans so often face in our lives. If I gave the impression that all spiritual people are morons I apologize, you need look no further than this forum to see this is not the case. Ego Tripping, Verk, SweetSativa, Reverie, and Ziplock have all professed some sort of spiritual belief and they are among the most intelligent and enlightened individuals I've had the pleasure of coming across.

Unfortunately the quiet respectful few are drowned out by the ignorant, shouting many. If the majority of believers thoughtfully and rationally debated their belief there would be no need for this book, but they don't. The zealots burn you at the stake, they shout you down and call you a godless freak, they treat you like second class citizens, their reaction is very much like your first post nord, and that is precisely why this book and this discussion must be had. Religion kills reason, and there is no place for zealous bigotry in today's world.