"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[Ramini]

---

i hate the big daddy of mainstream religion then..i'm with them when it comes to helping others pero their god..please keep it to yourself..

[bodie]

I have in fact read that book. To be quite honest, I found that the authors wernt very convincing. I felt that the arguments that they made against Dawkins could be thrown back against them. For example, they said that:

*Dawkins was out of his depth talking about psychology

*Dawkins was selective in his material and took things out of context

*Dawkins made fantastic leaps of logic in his arguments without proof

*Dawkins ideas on religion come from outdated sources which are not considered valid by contemporary theologians

Ironically, a sentence of two after making these claims, the authors commits the same mistake.

That said, I dont agree with some of the things Dawkins said. The ideas behind what he says seem sound, but the vision hes moving into... not so much. It didnt detract from the core of the book tho, Dawkins is your anti-missionary. Keeping that thought in mind put the things he said in context, in spite of his sometimes inflammatory wording.

[Ramini]

i just hope he doesn't turn into a fundamentalist...well everyone of us is in our own way..but hopefully it doesn't consume him...fundamentalism and other on-the-offensive ideologies are easy to nurture and keep but tolerance is one thing that is very hard to keep.

hopefully he applies some "military tactics" in his quest in sharing to the public what he knows..dli sya sundalo pero a thinking person will get the point.

1. Don't fire unless fired upon.
2. Always reload
3. Always look for high ground
4. Flank 'em then kill 'em

[Hellblazer 2.1]

would it be safe to assume that the "God" being discussed in the book is the anthropomorphic God?

[bodie]

As the thread starter why don't you point out or cite some examples in the book which you agree and not agree..im also an atheist..and like yourself dli sad ko agree sa tanan gsulti ug pamaagi ni dawkins..would you kindly share something sa thread?

Well... Dawkins the idea of indoctrinating children into religion struck a chord. I agree with him on that gyud. Teaching religion to children at such an early age makes it harder for them to come at an informed choice on that matter. They would essentially be going against a lot of things they believed in as a child in order to naturally come to a different opinion.

I also agree with Dawkins when he says that religion isnt necessary for morality. Its hard to say for certain of course, but unlike what a lot of theist say, a free-for-all society without rules would be counterproductive. Something (perhaps socially) would have come out eventually... probably.

I like how he traced the roots of religion, it wasnt very comprehensive, but the general idea was there. If anyone is interested in a good read regarding how other culturs view religion (and other practices) I highly recommend "The Golden Bough" by Sir James Frazier. Anyway, there are a lot of other things... too many to cite.

One of the things I do not agree on is his decision to go on an all out attack against religion. People should be free to make their own choices, and if they decide to believe in god, let them be. Calling them out and saying they are stupid or something doesn't help much.

Oh... I also agree with his choice of women. Lala Ward... guapa kaau. hehe

[bodie]

i just hope he doesn't turn into a fundamentalist...well everyone of us is in our own way..but hopefully it doesn't consume him...fundamentalism and other on-the-offensive ideologies are easy to nurture and keep but tolerance is one thing that is very hard to keep.

He does seem that way sometimes. Disagreeing with someone else's ideas isnt an excuse to go out of your way and antagonize others.

[bodie]

would it be safe to assume that the "God" being discussed in the book is the anthropomorphic God?

Probably... that the impression that I get from reading the book anyway. The fact that its christian theologians that he tussles with lends credence that that assumption.

[bluedes]

diba, he's the guy who also mentioned that saying your child is a christian child is a form of child abuse??

[Hellblazer 2.1]

Well... Dawkins the idea of indoctrinating children into religion struck a chord. I agree with him on that gyud. Teaching religion to children at such an early age makes it harder for them to come at an informed choice on that matter. They would essentially be going against a lot of things they believed in as a child in order to naturally come to a different opinion.

I also agree with Dawkins when he says that religion isnt necessary for morality. Its hard to say for certain of course, but unlike what a lot of theist say, a free-for-all society without rules would be counterproductive. Something (perhaps socially) would have come out eventually... probably.

I like how he traced the roots of religion, it wasnt very comprehensive, but the general idea was there. If anyone is interested in a good read regarding how other culturs view religion (and other practices) I highly recommend "The Golden Bough" by Sir James Frazier. Anyway, there are a lot of other things... too many to cite.

One of the things I do not agree on is his decision to go on an all out attack against religion. People should be free to make their own choices, and if they decide to believe in god, let them be. Calling them out and saying they are stupid or something doesn't help much.

Oh... I also agree with his choice of women. Lala Ward... guapa kaau. hehe

i also agree with you there regarding that attack against religion. it's not right.

[Ramini]

Well... Dawkins the idea of indoctrinating children into religion struck a chord. I agree with him on that gyud. Teaching religion to children at such an early age makes it harder for them to come at an informed choice on that matter. They would essentially be going against a lot of things they believed in as a child in order to naturally come to a different opinion.

yes ako pd agree ko ana...hehe!!! "catholic child" "protestant child" etc..sakto jd

I also agree with Dawkins when he says that religion isnt necessary for morality. Its hard to say for certain of course, but unlike what a lot of theist say, a free-for-all society without rules would be counterproductive. Something (perhaps socially) would have come out eventually... probably.

SUS!! sakto jd..i will always qoute a really devout and warped poster here sa istorya on his views regarding religion and morality he said. "ang ginoo man nagmando nato nga atong panggaon ug tahoron ang atong mga parents..pero kamo mga dli mutuog ginoo dli mo mutuo, mutahod or mupangga sa inyong mga ginikanan"...gi laliman ka!!! usa ka devout catholic had the audacity to say such things!! ambot nlang!

II like how he traced the roots of religion, it wasnt very comprehensive, but the general idea was there. If anyone is interested in a good read regarding how other culturs view religion (and other practices) I highly recommend "The Golden Bough" by Sir James Frazier. Anyway, there are a lot of other things... too many to cite.

btaw that's what i like sa mga ingon nga klase nga authors you can still gain something without ever adhering to the author's ideas...just like Sitchin..you can dump and disregard his annunaki alien concept but still your time won't be wasted kai after ana you'd be a semi-expert on Sumerian and Mesoamerican cultures.

One of the things I do not agree on is his decision to go on an all out attack against religion. People should be free to make their own choices, and if they decide to believe in god, let them be. Calling them out and saying they are stupid or something doesn't help much.

yes agree pd ghapon ko ani..although i would agree nga mao ni iyang sugod pero i won't like it na if mao nlang jd ni iyang mode all the time..always on the offensive..kalma lang ba..in spurts lang..hehe!

Oh... I also agree with his choice of women. Lala Ward... guapa kaau. hehe

sayang wako kita..hehe!