The god delusion... Religious debate

rexehuk

rexehuk

rexehuk

Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
4,250
Location
My own head
Ok, who here has read the God Delusion and how did you find it?

I have just started the book via audio (Read by Richard Dawkins).

What is everyones religious stance here and why?

NO SERIOUS DEBATING, JUST NOTE YOUR STANCE AND JUSTIFY IT :)

Can't be bothered with the usual religious debate becoming violent etc...
 
I haven't read it all yet, but have read "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything", "The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine" and "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief".
 
I'm an atheist. Why? Because there's no evidence to support the existence of God whatsoever, and most religions are illogical and defy all basic common sense, even for those without it.

PS. Obtaining the audiobook now.
 
Last edited:
I'm about half way through, one of my many books, pushing on 15 now that I need to finish.

But I so far have found it very good, I am a stant atheist.
 
I read it about 3/4 years ago now. It's alright, but I prefer Dawkins' other work. The God Delusion, although a little against the grain and out on a limb is more or less a book on theological common sense. Take it for what it is. It's not a bad start if you want to start getting involved in the whole debate. What annoys me more are all the spin-off books taking an opposing stance (i.e. The Dawkins Delusion, etc.) who'd have otherwise never got printed; pure dross.
 
My sort of view is like this.

I believe there is only one god... and that is yourself. I believe religion was invented originally as an honest story in order to reach morals etc.

I have no problem with people believing in Religion, for example people that have nothing in their life, if anything this is a positive of religion... it gives someone out there something to believe in that will stay unchanged.

As for a creator etc, I believe in science :)

** THIS IS MY OPINION **
 
Mulder said:
Apart from being able to create completely synthetic life, for example?
Click to expand...
That's a bit of an odd retort.

I think he meant we don't know 100% that God (doesn't) exists. Or, technically, 100% of anything. We can't even say with 100% certainty that we will die, as there is a tiny chance I'm immortal. Etc. I imagined it was more of a philosophical statement than a scientific one.

rexehuk said:
As for a creator etc, I believe in science :)
Click to expand...
Who created science :p
 
Dawkins is a smug unlikeable troll

If religious people want to trot off to church on a Sunday morning
then let them get on with it, I see no harm

I really don't get why people want to disprove peoples beliefs for the sake of it,
it's such a completely sad and joyless occupation.
Can't the plonker make money from a proper writing job instead of being a nasty little parasite :rolleyes:
 
bitslice said:
Dawkins is a smug unlikeable troll

If religious people want to trot off to church on a Sunday morning
then let them get on with it, I see no harm

I really don't get why people want to disprove peoples beliefs for the sake of it,
it's such a completely sad and joyless occupation.
Can't the plonker make money from a proper writing job instead of being a nasty little parasite :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
For the most part I agree, he fails to appreciate that he is just as bad as religious zealot by forcing/preaching about no belief on people.

The harm arises, from religion, when religion overrides individual/societies growth and causes oppression. E.g. Bhurka, wife-rape etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom