The God Delusion - ongoing review

the only problem with this book is that richard dawkins is arrogant and a bit of tool. so people who are very sure of their opinions will not be swayed at all by this book and will just be rubbed the wrong way.
the reason he concentrates on christianity (as he says) because it is the religion of his culture so he is more familiar with the beliefs and feelings of christians.if he would have gone into such depth with another religion he would doubtless have had to face far more tiring criticism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The way I see it, there are two options:

One way leads to more exploration, the other way comes to a standstill without (ever) reaching any conclusions. I think, personally, it is the cowards way out to fear the truth on either side. At the very least, to me, it is worth the endeavor. The problem with a lack of faith is, by definition, it is prejudicial. If you lack faith in someone/something, it interferes with your ability to be objective about it. This happens with too much faith too, but sitting on the fence gets us nowhere.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then clearly, you are a coward.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But who can we reach?

 

Why do you need to reach someone, isn't it enough to reach yourself?:shrug:

 

I was responding to this:

 

How to put this gently - - - Generally, it's thought to work the other way around.

 

Ahh I see, I was referring to the futility of polemic.

Hmm, thats strange, I always look for something only when I believe its there, if I don't think its there, I don't bother. Perhaps you function differently.

 

So you find indifference conflicts with objectivity ?

I often look for things when I'm not sure where they are.

And I've noticed that the more certain I am that I put them where inspection apparently (in the shallow, circumstantial interpretation) shows them not to be,

the more faith I have in their location despite not being able to lay hands on them,

the longer it takes me to find them where - as it turns out - they ended up, somehow.

 

"The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason.(dawkins)"


so ahh
any physicist types in here wanna explain their gods?

 

From your Dawkins' quote it seems better if Dawkins stick to his version of god than assuming what sort of god physicists supposedly believe.

 

"we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions"
"and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals,"
"We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage." (dawkins)


ja
i am hardcore
dawkins, hypocritical

 

bizzare festivals of delusionals get so real and lovely..

 

You're talking about car keys you put somewhere, I'm talking about exploring the unknown. :shrug:

Brahman, of course

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

Didn't Oppenheimer say:I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

All Hindus apparently

 

secondly....

i submit once again to a physicist. any physicist

 

Oh my goodness... win a copy of the God Delusion!

www.snakeystew.com

Shameless advertising, but it's relevant.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

fuck me charlie!

what do you think, james?
what are your ideas?

 

But actually a rather fantastic God, as fantastic as the one who sticks around.

And, until further notice from scientists, creating a universe, setting up specific laws of nature and disappearing would all be miracles.

 

I thought so.
So what are we doing?