religious debate

[itachi-san]

Not sure what the question is, but I think different religions will provide different answers, depending on whether or not they think God determines the time of death. I don't believe God chooses for people to die, so asking why infants die is similar to asking why my dog got hit by a truck. Infants die for the same reason adults and animals die. Their body fails, either due to something external (car accident) or to a defect (sudden-infant-death-syndrome). Can you explain exactly what you're asking?

Sure. I was thinking along the lines of souls being resurrected and put into new vessels. Since those vessels failed, does that imply God or God's system has made a mistake? Does the same reason of existence for the two of us apply to kids who have SIDS?

[Guest]

After 25+ years of scientific study and research, I find no plausible reason for the existence of the universe BUT for the will of God. Sorry, I didn't read all 45 pages of this topic, so if this is repetitive, please forgive me.

I can not come to believe that the cosmos flew into existence from some quantum singularity for any reason except that God willed it so. I'm cool with the big bang, but WHY did it happen? It is certainly an "extraordinary claim" to attempt to quantify the extent of the universe. And even more extraordinary to assert its origin from a quantum singularity. Yet I concede that common ground with my atheist friends without proof. But why did it happen? Pondering that question has established my faith in a Creator. I can live without proof, but not without faith.

I'll be happy to hear the explanations of the atheists as to what "triggered" the big bang. [but I warn you, I'll just ask you to explain what triggered the trigger.] So I proffer my post simply for the fun of a healthy, respectful, intellectual discourse. Peace!

Maybe your question goes some way to revealing the answer (see bits in red). It seems to me that there is at least one implicit assumption here; that there is a cause for all things (a meaningless concept in the case of the big bang since time is a part of our universe and so we have no particular reason to believe that the big bang had any prior events, causal or otherwise).

But the language you use implies another possible assumption; that all things happen for a reason. That could imply an underlying intelligence, or "plan", which would be a big assumption to make if you're proposing a rationale for believing in God. Maybe you didn't mean this and you just want to understand how things work, but I'm highlighting it as an example of how language can draw us into accepting hidden assumptions.

Is there still a question to answer?

Well, I haven't actually explained anything, and maybe you have trouble with the idea of things just existing for no reason. Different people may offer different explanations for this, but my approach is to ponder what you mean by "existence" and ask how our universe could not exist. That might sound suspiciously like evading the question, but it isn't really. Here's a link to a topic I posted a few weeks ago to pursue this line of thought (that topic never went as far as I would have liked). Briefly, what I'm saying is that if you try to draw a distinction between potential universes that exist, and potential universes that don't, there is no meaningful way to do this. Any possible, potential universe would be viewed as "existing" by its inhabitants (if it were the kind of universe that had inhabitants) without having to go through a process of creation. That's simply a part of its structure. Also note how the finite lifespan of our own universe is irrelevant to this. Rather than elaborate too much on this here, it's best to have a look at the topic I linked to. You seem genuinely interested in the question so I'd like to see what you make of it.

[Guest]

Sure. I was thinking along the lines of souls being resurrected and put into new vessels.

Since I don't believe in an immortal soul, I certainly can't claim to speak for "theists" as a group, but I can tell you what I believe.

Does it imply that God made a mistake?

I don't believe it does, but I don't want to get off topic so I'll hold off on that discussion.

Does the same reason of existence for the two of us apply to kids who have SIDS?

I don't know why there would be any difference. The same process of life being passed along through procreation took place regardless of the outcome, whether that be a long life of glorious accomplishment, or a miscarriage. To suggest that there are different reasons implies that a higher power was injecting will into the process of creating the individual, and thus predetermining their outcome. That doesn't make any sense to me.

When I talk about resurrection, I'm referring to God creating a new vessel for the person, but it's the same person, and they don't start over from scratch (which would be closer to reincarnation). When individuals in the Bible were resurrected, they looked the same. The body of Lazarus may have been significantly decayed after four days, so God would have needed to pretty much create a new body, but the man who walked out of the tomb was the same as the one that was put there (minus whatever malady caused his death, no doubt). Everyone who was resurrected in the Bible, except Jesus, died again later. However, those miracles were only supposed to be a preview of what resurrection in the future would involve, at which time those who would be restored would have eternal youth.

Perhaps we can get some other religious person to contribute their thoughts on the matter. I should note, however, that there are few things more irritating than some preacher telling a bereaved parent that "God must have wanted another angel." If anyone suggests that shining bit of comfort I'll have to write a computer program to remotely smack them with a clue stick.

[Guest]

First of alll, I'm an atheist. I feel that science can only take us so far, I doubt it whether you can ever get a scientific reason why the universe was created. I do agree with other people saying that all the religions 'ever' could be the same god If you look at all the religions they all have similiar traits. Gods can never be proven or disproven.

[Guest]

First of alll, I'm an atheist. I feel that science can only take us so far, I doubt it whether you can ever get a scientific reason why the universe was created. I do agree with other people saying that all the religions 'ever' could be the same god If you look at all the religions they all have similiar traits. Gods can never be proven or disproven.

It's true that gods cannot be proven or disproven by science, since science is the study of the natural world, which takes any deities out of the picture from the very start. Obviously, a God, if there is one, would be quite capable of proving its existence.

As to religions all having similar traits ... um, k. So almost all humans have a head, two arms, and two legs. Therefore they are all the same. Is that your logic?

[Guest]

As to religions all having similar traits ... um, k. So almost all humans have a head, two arms, and two legs. Therefore they are all the same. Is that your logic?

you have to understand that Timbolina said "similar" not "the same"

Humans are similar in that they all have a head, two arms, and two legs, but no one said they were all the same, and Timbolina never said anything comparable to that.

So the similarites he was talking about, were just things they have in common

he never said they were the same

[Guest]

you have to understand that Timbolina said "similar" not "the same"

Humans are similar in that they all have a head, two arms, and two legs, but no one said they were all the same, and Timbolina never said anything comparable to that.

So the similarites he was talking about, were just things they have in common

he never said they were the same

True. I don't think Timbolina worded the point exactly as intended, so perhaps the thought was lost. I tried to see past the awkward sentence to the underlying message. She (he?) is an atheist and therefore doesn't believe in God. So when she says ...

I do agree with other people saying that all the religions 'ever' could be the same god. If you look at all the religions they all have similiar traits.

... I take that to mean that because all religions share similar traits, they all share the same intrinsic character. Whether they teach that Zeus is the child of the Titans, or that Nirvana is our final destination, or that Jesus is the son of God ... they're all basically the same. Every religion is just filling that desire that humans have to look to something higher, but regardless of what they teach, they're all nonsense.

This line of reasoning is a convenient way out for those who don't want to seriously investigate religious belief. By stating that all religions share traits, one is lumping them all into the same basket so they can be discounted as a whole, rather than on their individual merit.

My response was basically this: Since all religions are obviously not the same, just as humans that share traits are not the same, then what exactly is the point of making that statement?

[Guest]

... I take that to mean that because all religions share similar traits, they all share the same intrinsic character. Whether they teach that Zeus is the child of the Titans, or that Nirvana is our final destination, or that Jesus is the son of God ... they're all basically the same. Every religion is just filling that desire that humans have to look to something higher, but regardless of what they teach, they're all nonsense.

This line of reasoning is a convenient way out for those who don't want to seriously investigate religious belief. By stating that all religions share traits, one is lumping them all into the same basket so they can be discounted as a whole, rather than on their individual merit.

My response was basically this: Since all religions are obviously not the same, just as humans that share traits are not the same, then what exactly is the point of making that statement?

I see where you're coming from, and I'm going to have to agree.

I agree with Timbolina, that there are religions with a lot of similar traits, though, don't hate me if I'm wrong, the first two that come to find are Judaism and Christianity

I don't think they're similar enough to put in one basket, as you say.

so I get where you're coming from

[Guest]

It's true that gods cannot be proven or disproven by science, since science is the study of the natural world, which takes any deities out of the picture from the very start. Obviously, a God, if there is one, would be quite capable of proving its existence.

As to religions all having similar traits ... um, k. So almost all humans have a head, two arms, and two legs. Therefore they are all the same. Is that your logic?

No, lets assume for a minute that there is ONE God. Now somewhere along the lines of human evolution someone started believing in this god. Now, is it possible that over time with humans spreading across the globe that in fact every religion is the same, but sculpted by cultural differences. This could be possible but then there are problems such as in Buddhism there is "re-birth" and in Christianity "reserrection". These are significant differences, so what i meant was that the 'concept' of each sets of religion have evolved from one. This is plausible by the process of 'Chinese Whispers'. After all, no-one is positively sure where and why religions were 'created'.

I hope that makes some sense...

[Guest]

I understand that argument, and it's obviously at the heart of the assertion that positing a God is an extraordinary claim. However, using that logic, aren't both sides making an equally illogical claim?

Nope

According to the theist, there must be something which got it all started. That it all happened on its own without any cause whatsoever seems impossible, certainly an extraordinary claim which would require support.

Some of which I have given before. But it doesn't have to be conclusive, it's enough to show that "there was a first cause" is not nearly as probable as the "It's obvious" crowd would assume.

"[T]here must be something which got it all started" is the premise causing all of the problems. And as new scientific understanding is unfolding as we speak that puts this (once largely assumed) claim in serious doubt, perhaps it is time to let it go. At least as a pure premise.

According to the atheist, suggesting that there needs to be a creator begs the question of the creator's existence, and thus doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.

Ah the old Infinite regress.

It is a good knockdown argument against the claim of a creator that goes:

"Everything has a cause. The universe therefore had a cause. Call that cause "God" " (Why? - Beats the hel out of me!)

This is the typical scenario. The Infinite regress comes in, NOT as a "trivial piece of logic" (No Logic is trivial) but as a direct result of the Theist's (who make this argument) first premise - IF everything needs a cause then God needs a cause, and that cause needs a cause and so on and so on.

The only way I can see out is in denying that first premise, if it is correct then we are stuck with an infinite regress every time.

In sort; the Infinite regress response defeats THAT kind of argument, kills it dead.

The problem is that the atheist hasn't provided any better solution to the "How did it start?" enigma. He uses a trivial piece of logic to shoot down the opposing theory, without offering anything in its place.

So?! It is enough to show "your" argument is flawed. Not having a workable or slam-dunk one ourselves doesn't change that in the slightest. Even if "we" have nothing; that line of argument is still a dismal failure, as dismal as ever.

I've dealt with the "trivial" jibe already But it is only "trivial" in the sense that it is such a simple little piece of logic that gets the job done so completely and cleanly. It's very "triviality" demonstrates how poor the argument it destroys really is

Unfortunately, anything he suggests (e.g., everything was always here) suffers the same logical flaws as the existence of an uncreated First Cause. It still doesn't answer the question.

Sorry, not the SAME flaws. What has been offered are Hypotheses - and they have been presented as such, not claimed as fact. What they generally demonstrate is that there may well be perfectly "natural" explanations, that do not require the postulation of extra Magical entities to make them work. The simplest of reasoning shows that such answers are better and "safer" bets than any Theistic based ones. Through the most basic Occam's razor examinations for one thing.

They do not suffer the problems of the typical theist one above, neither falling into the Infinite regress problem or committing any logical fallacies. Their only real stumbling block form becoming scientific Theories is that we can not test them, at least not yet. As such; hypotheses the remain for now.

They do answer the question, but might not be THE answer, but then the above Infinite regress prone one above is even less likely to be so!

So, if neither a creator nor an eternally existing universe (a particularly difficult proposition in view of the Big Bang) is logically viable on its own, then we have to choose which is the more likely explanation based on what we can observe. This is where we typically get into the questions about apparent intelligent design in nature, the finely-tuned nature of the universe, etc. Those are far more worthy topics to base one's conclusion on than a weak philosophical assertion which has no explanatory merit of its own.

What "weak philosophical assertion"?! If you are talking about the infinite regress deal, then no, that is quite solid - For the arguments on which it is used. Not all GODDIDIT claims are of that type of course. But if you insist on using such an argument then you are royally screwed.

First off your "neither a creator nor an eternally existing universe" is far to close to the commiting of the False Dilemma Logical fallacy There are more offered possible solutions (scientific hypotheses) than that, and you know it - I gave you one a while ago for starters!

We have The Nothing can (and is possibly quite likely to) come from nothing, as a natural consequence of the nature of nothing" hypothesis. There are other (equally counter-intuitive, but that is to be expected at this level of science) hypotheses about the nature of the universe and space-time that suggest that it had and needed no cause, and even that it had no beginning at all as such (while retaining the Big Bang stuff). It gets pretty weird from the layman's perspective, but works within the known physics etc.

But none of that matters beyond the simple observation that GODDIDIT is far from the prevailing hypothesis,and that it is in fact the weakest, evidence and reason free one of the lot. Because there is nothing wrong with accepting the fact that we simply do not have enough to go on at the moment to justify any particular view/idea/hypothesis as one worthy of "belief", certainly not in any hard sense - like typical theistic belief and Faith.

"I DON'T KNOW." Is a perfectly good view to hold, especially if that is all the evidence warrants - then it is the BEST one.

The point being made is not "We have a better answer than GODDIDIT " but simply that the God-Hypothesis, as Victor Stenger puts it, is a Failed Hypothesis. It simply does not stand up to scrutiny. As such it does not mean that there is no god(s) - something possibly unknowable - but that there is simply insufficient evidence and reasons to justify believing that there is!

There might be a god or gods, it might even be "your" god.

There might be a china teapot revolving about the sun

Or a Dragon in My Garage

Or Fairies at the bottom of my Garden

As well, but without any good REASON to justify such claims, there is no reason anyone should even consider believing any of them to be true.

And no; The "Intelligent Design in nature" one (painfully named there - ID?! shudder!) is one great big Argument from Ignorance from start to finish, one that Evolution should have done away with decades ago. And it would have if certain theistic types could get the heads out of their magic book for long enough to let it go - Seriously; they are like a dog with a favourite chew-toy

The "the finely-tuned universe" one is just as bad - involving the same argument from ignorance, as well as often resorting to some really horrendous probability miscalculations and abuse - Pseudo-maths and Pseudo-science!

[Guest]

im a Muslim and i love this faith because it works. The Qur'an has never been changed like the Bible and it makes sense. But what i wanna say to atheists is how can you believe that there's nothing more when you die? how can you think that there's life and thats it? doesnt it scare you to think that there is no God who created everything? i'd rather believe that there was One Omnipotent Being to start with and He made everything than the whole universe just happened by itself.

[Guest]

im a Muslim and i love this faith because it works. The Qur'an has never been changed like the Bible and it makes sense. But what i wanna say to atheists is how can you believe that there's nothing more when you die? how can you think that there's life and thats it? doesnt it scare you to think that there is no God who created everything? i'd rather believe that there was One Omnipotent Being to start with and He made everything than the whole universe just happened by itself.

I understand what your saying with there being nothing more when you die. But is that any basis for faith?

[Guest]

im a Muslim and i love this faith because it works. The Qur'an has never been changed like the Bible and it makes sense. But what i wanna say to atheists is how can you believe that there's nothing more when you die? how can you think that there's life and thats it? doesnt it scare you to think that there is no God who created everything? i'd rather believe that there was One Omnipotent Being to start with and He made everything than the whole universe just happened by itself.

This is nothing but the Appeal to consequences Logical Fallacy.

I might not like to think that I will die and that will be it, I might be scared to think that there is no creator god, I might even prefer to "believe that there was One Omnipotent Being to start with and He made everything than the whole universe just happened by itself."

But none of those in any way make any of them more likely to be true!

I was going to give an analogy, but then remembered that Sam Harris gave a nice one:

"What is your response to people who like science, who agree with it, but who say "It's not enough, it doesn't satisfy me, I need more?"

With religious moderates, you have people talking about just wanting meaning in their lives, which I argue is a total non-sequitur when it comes down to justifying your belief in God.

If I told you that I thought there was a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my backyard, and you asked me, why do you think that? I say, this belief gives my life meaning, or my family draws a lot of joy from this belief, and we dig for this diamond every Sunday and we have this gigantic pit in our lawn. I would start to sound like a lunatic to you. You can't believe there really is a diamond in your backyard because it gives your life meaning. If that's possible, that's self-deception that nobody wants."

Why Religion Must End: Interview with Sam Harris

Just 'cause you like the imagined consequences of your belief does not add any weight to it's truth value. I would LIKE it if the Holocaust and the past world wars never happened, doesn't change the fact that they did in the least!

But as it happens:

"[H]ow can you believe that there's nothing more when you die?" Because all of the evidence from Observable Reality, that has been collected and critically examined by literally millions of people (philosophers and scientists), suggests nothing else. As far as can be ascertained by all of that evidence and true reasoning, when we die, that is the end of us. We get to enjoy a brief time in this world and then we "step aside" to let others have their time in the sun

It is only wishful thinking that leads anyone to believe that one can survive their own death

Tell you what; why don't you wish REALLY hard that you can fly, then take a flying leap off the roof? - NOT AN ACTUAL SUGGESTION: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME (or anywhere else ) - Why not?! Because no matter how much you may wish it were true (that you can fly, that here is a giant diamond under your back yard, or that you can survive your own death) the facts will not be any different than they now are - the laws of physics do not CARE what you would personally prefer to be true!

'[H]ow can you think that there's life and thats it?" Same answer The evidence suggests nothing else.

"[D]oesnt it scare you to think that there is no God who created everything?" No it doesn't, but then I got out of that mindset long ago and early enough to recognise and break free of the manipulative indoctrination techniques of relgion before the took too strong a hold on me. I did not fall for the rhetoric that tried to indoctrinate me into thinking that without the Magical Super Genie my life would have no meaning. I grew up.

I do wonder how everything that we see around us first came to be; it is a fascinating question indeed. I DO NOT assume that it was created by a magical man, or anything else. That only narrows my openness to the real answer when, if ever, it is presented to me. It might be a creator, but it might not But it doesn't scare me, I think that is actually a rather immature emotional response to ones ignorance! Not knowing, to me, represents an exciting possibility and possible future opportunity - something I don't know now opens up the possibility that I might one day come upon that knowledge, and the possibility of learning something new is always an exciting thought! But no; it doesn't scare me that I might never know either! There is no doubt far more that I will never know than that which I will, in fact there is a very real possibility that I (and the rest of you as well) may never know anything with absolute certainty ever! None of that is anything that should be feared, it is just the way it is. All we can do is make every effort to learn and discover as much as we possibly can. And enjoy that wonderful journey of discovery as we do so

i'd rather believe that there was One Omnipotent Being to start with and He made everything than the whole universe just happened by itself.. (already dealt with the problem with personal preferences) Why? I for one would much prefer to know the TRUTH, no matter what it might be, whether it is GODDIDIT, or "it just happened by itself" or whatever it might be - There are more than those two possibilities you know, and in all likelihood a number that no one has even thought of yet. And you do realise that "It just happened by itself" is a rather pathetic caricature of what the "natural" answers postulated and what the actual answer might be, don't you?

This is analogous to the evolution /creation answers of how life as we know it got to be here and as it is:

Creation says; GODDIDIT - that a god (what ever that is) made us like this.

Evolution says; "it just happened by itself" to use your caricature. BUT the real science, the real facts and theory of evolution say far more than that don't they? They paint a detailed picture of how life arose (a picture we are still filling in of course as the scientific study continues apace), all based on solid but rather simple processes. All resulting in a awe-inspiring, wonderful, picture of how we all came to be here! whittling that all down to just "it just happened by itself" rather cheapens a marvelous and wondrous set of processes and events. Just as "God just made it" does, I am sure, to your sensibilities. But to me the "natural" conclusion (evolution) is not only AS wonderful and spectacular than the "God Did it" one, but far more so! And even more so, not Despite, but directly Due to the fact that it all develops out of such wonderfully simple processes! It's really rather beautiful to be honest!

And when and if we ever learn a natural explanation for the universe's existence as well, who knows; it might be equally as wonderful. Despite (in your opinion it seems) it's naturalness, it's lack of literal Magic

[Guest]

i see what you're saying but id rather believe something than believe nothing

[Guest]

i see what you're saying but id rather believe something than believe nothing

Yes but thats because your afraid by your own admission of death. And as our old yoda friend says fear is what turns us to the dark side

[Guest]

i see what you're saying but id rather believe something than believe nothing

Again your personal preferences don't really mean much do they?

And seriously, would you really rather believe something that is not true, and thus be led astray to other fallacious conclusions because of that false belief, merely because you fear not having a specific belief on a certain subject?!

Because if you believe something for no better reason than you want to believe something at least, then that is what you are setting yourself up for. One false or flawed belief can snowball, affecting all of your other beliefs or opportunities for beliefs as well! And something as significant as Allah or "the creator" is a huge one, bound to affect many of your other beliefs as well! I for one would want to be pretty damn sure before setting my views on something so important!

And you are committing something of the False Dilemma Logical fallacy here again. Who says that without believing in Allah (or any gods) as the creator of the universe, that one thus "believes nothing"?! I don't have a particular belief as to the origin of the universe, that is true - Better to call that "Not having a set belief on this issue" rather than "believing nothing"; that sounds like Nihilism, which is not what this is. But I do have plenty of other beliefs, none of them cherished or otherwise held as absolutely true and set in stone.

In the case of the origin of the universe; I understand that this is a very difficult problem to solve, and that we do not have enough to go on yet, to say with any degree of certainty, or even strong confidence, just what the answer is most likely to be. And I am mature enough to accept this fact:

I believe that There is as of yet insufficient evidence for me to believe any particular claim or hypothesis is THE answer to the question. And that is quite enough for me, because that is how the evidence now stands. I wait with baited breath for any new evidence, reasonings, arguments and hypotheses that come about. I would dearly love to see the day when a good theory for this becomes dominant enough to warrant my "belief". I don't know if I will live to see that or not, but here's hoping

Do you see the distinction between us on this issue? One of us takes the mature wait and see approach, the other choses an immature "I want to believe in something, anything (even if it is a load of rubbish)." path.

Faith IS NOT a Virtue!

There is nothing good or admirable in believing in something when the evidence and reason do not warrant it. Quite the contrary; such belief can all too often lead to great harm.

If there isn't enough Evidence and/or good enough Reasons to justify belief in something; Then one Should not believe it!. It's really that simple.

[Guest]

i agree there isn't much point believing in something because you don't think there's a viable alternative or that you don't want to not have a belief

Edited June 2, 2008 by linius

[Guest]

i agree there isn't much point believing in something because you don't think there's a viable alternative or that you don't want to not have a belief

Right

Those are actually two Logical Fallacies right there!

1. The Argument From Ignorance - I don't see/know how X could have happened, therefore GODDIDIT. This one is specifically known as The God of The Gaps Fallacy, and is a subset of the Argument From Ignorance.

2. Appeal to Consequences - I don't like the idea, or it would in some way be bad, if X were not true, therefore X is true.

[Guest]

Unless you believe, you will not understand.

Saint Augustine

With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another.

Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

We think having faith means being convinced God exists in the same way we are convinced a chair exists. People who cannot be completely convinced of God’s existence think faith is impossible for them. Not so. People who doubt can have great faith because faith is something you do, not something you think. In fact, the greater your doubt the more heroic your faith.

Real Live Preacher

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

Richard Dawkins

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

Thomas Jefferson

I am humble enough to defer this discussion to those who so eloquently state their case, nothing I can say would add to the discussion

As to my personal belief, it is that,personal.

[Guest]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. " Einstein

"Everyone ought to worship God according to his own inclinations, and not to be constrained by force. " Flavius Joesphus

"The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible." Oscar Wilde

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself. " Sir Richard Francis Burton

"To believe in God or in a guiding force because someone tells you to is the height of stupidity. We are given senses to receive our information within. With our own eyes we see, and with our own skin we feel. With our intelligence, it is intended that we understand. But each person must puzzle it out for himself or herself. " Sophy Burnham

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. " Steven Weinberg

I think these quotes sum up my views. That there is nothing wrong with religion, and actually at the moment science can't answer questions that religion can ie why we are all here. But i also believe that a society with a strong religious spine is dangerous. People should discover and understand answers themselves rather than being forced-fed beliefs. But i also believe in the cliche that all good comes from religion but so does all bad.

[Guest]

has anyone hear read richard dawkin

or rather, one of his books

[unreality]

hey linius

and no, I haven't. I'd like to, though. Maybe the library has em... he seems to be kind of a jack@ss though, from what I've heard about him. Though that's mainly theists speaking, so I'll decide for myself ;D

Edited June 4, 2008 by unreality

[Guest]

has anyone hear read richard dawkin

or rather, one of his books

Yes

All of them:

The Selfish Gene,

The Extended Phenotype,

The Blind Watchmaker,

River Out of Eden,

Climbing Mount Improbable,

Unweaving the Rainbow,

A Devil's Chaplain,

The Ancestor's Tale,

The God Delusion.

And I am eagerly awaiting his next book, which is being written as we speak, as of yet has no title, and presents the evidence for Evolution

I was actually invited to enter into this debate here, from my more usual place; The Richard Dawkins.net forum

[Guest]

Maybe the library has em... he seems to be kind of a jack@ss though, from what I've heard about him. Though that's mainly theists speaking, so I'll decide for myself ;D

My local library has most of them.

And yes that is total Theistic BS, he's really quite a mild mannered and lovely guy really.

If you look here: Richard Dawkins.net

You can see for yourself; a number of videos are available with him (and many others) in them. Lectures, debates, interviews and documentaries...

The Growing up in the Universe series of lectures is pretty good (from 1991)

And the far more recent Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss discussion was interesting as well.

Along with a lot more in between

[Guest]

and no, I haven't. I'd like to, though. Maybe the library has em... he seems to be kind of a jack@ss though, from what I've heard about him. Though that's mainly theists speaking, so I'll decide for myself ;D

I've only read the God Delusion. From that, it's clear to see why he winds up theists. I put off reading it for a while because I tend to avoid polemics which put forward an opinion I basically agree with, as they generally just serve to reinforce preconceived ideas and provide little genuine food for thought. However, on this occasion, I needn't have worried. I found myself often disagreeing with what Dawkins was saying, or thinking it was unnecessarily confrontational, only to be subsequently won over by the weight of logic that followed. To call the God Delusion interesting and provocative is a bit like calling the Taj Mahal a "nice garden ornament". If you have a brain and don't mind using it, you really need to read that book. My only criticism is that Dawkin's style could put off many theists, who may find the full frontal assault on their treasured beliefs to be anathema. Perhaps in this way his uncompromising style compromises the message that it has to offer. Nevertheless, to theists I would say read it by all means, and think about it if you dare.