For all you Dawkins and Colbert fans!!
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/dawkins-colbert-p1.php
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/dawkins-colbert-p1.php
The God Dellusion
- Thread starter wsionynw
- Start date
I think that guy who wrote God's Delusion main person is to make atheists read the book and than really make tham believe in God.
Thanks for posting that. Really good stuff.
Yeah, I liked his comment "Who just 'did' God then"?
As for the book itself, I'm half way through it. It's great so far, of course. It's obviously not going to make much difference to theists who really want to believe - just look at Astrology to see my point...
But if people believe just because they are lazy and born into religion, it will certainly make them think.
As for the book itself, I'm half way through it. It's great so far, of course. It's obviously not going to make much difference to theists who really want to believe - just look at Astrology to see my point...
But if people believe just because they are lazy and born into religion, it will certainly make them think.
I think the link says more about the distinctions between american and english culture -lol
By the way, here is a good video from Richards tour of America promoting the God Delusion. It was at times very funny, and summed up some parts of his book very well. The Q & A was equally as interesting, informative and funny. He in particular focused on evolution because he was speaking in Kansas, which appears to be a frontline in the attack of evolution by creationists (which you wouldn'd realize by observing the good reception he got).
http://merlin.cc.ku.edu:8080/ramgen/unionav/rd329857495128.rv
It's a real audio file, so you will need real player I think.
http://merlin.cc.ku.edu:8080/ramgen/unionav/rd329857495128.rv
It's a real audio file, so you will need real player I think.
At least it would improve your aruguments.
You should read his book Light, call it a test of faith
Its not necessary when there are such devout souls as yourselves to present the base conclusions and premises
I am just waiting for something better than
"Wow dawkins book is really cool"
"yeah I loved it"
"at the moment I am half way through it"
"I really like what he says about theism"
etc etc
"Wow dawkins book is really cool"
"yeah I loved it"
"at the moment I am half way through it"
"I really like what he says about theism"
etc etc
That's because there are far too much detail to the book that can't be summed up in such a way that matches the effectiveness of the book. Although he did a good job of it on his 60 minute speech in the above video. I would not waste my time going into detail towards people who wouldn't have an open mind anyway (you certainly don't). So I just say, read the book or watch the speech I supplied in this thread.
Fire
and that means you have an open mind by default?
If thats all he has I've read better arguments by atheists from over 1000 years ago.
Let me guess - you are too stunned for words ...
and that means you have an open mind by default?
already have
If thats all he has I've read better arguments by atheists from over 1000 years ago.
What is your point? I have already discussed themes of the book with you in a far less articulate manner than Dawkins is able to do.
Of course. I follow evidence, and for superstitions, there is obviously none. It's far better than asserting a superstition whilst being unwilling to be open minded about it's falseness. In all your posts you have never demonstrated any open mindedness about gods non-existence.
I doubt you have. But yes, 1000 years later, atheism is just as relevant, whilst religion appears to have slipped in any rational society.
Really... then why does 95% of the American public still beileve in God, and why are we still talking about Jesus some 2,000 years later?
The book is very comprehensive. He discusses much more than he could in a TV appearance.
I did say 'rational' society. America is probably the most irrational of countries in western society.
I should also clarify my point that you quoted as it wasn't thought through properly as I was in a rush. The argument for atheism has remained constant, and unchanged throughout the ages, which goes against the dramatic variety of religion changing throughout time and geography which makes religion completely irrelevant. Atheism however, has become more than relevant as scientists have revealed the origin of the Earth, the origin of life and to some degree, even the origin of the universe. These amazing advancements have revealed no gods, but given an explanation. God is no explanation, and history shows us it has no relevance to anything that can be critically studied. Writings on atheism in ancient times are all the more remarkable considering they did not have 21st century knowledge.
Fire
Science is constant?
Can you refer to any science text book that has remained credible for the past 40 years and is likely to remain credible for the next 40?
I think you are confusing the word "revealed" with "theorized"
possessing the ability to give an explanation is hardly unique in this world
"the results of the scientific search in which during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born (one of the founders of quantum physics)
Maybe you aren't studying critically enough
Actually it makes their writings more pertinent because they were not bewildered by the illusory false prestige inherent with technological industrialism and could concentrate more on the fundamental issues of atheism rather than thinking life is really going places because they can fly in a space shuttle
Science is constant?
Can you refer to any science text book that has remained credible for the past 40 years and is likely to remain credible for the next 40?
I think you are confusing the word "revealed" with "theorized"
probably why empricism is never advocated as a methodology to approach god in scripture
possessing the ability to give an explanation is hardly unique in this world
"the results of the scientific search in which during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born (one of the founders of quantum physics)
Maybe you aren't studying critically enough
Actually it makes their writings more pertinent because they were not bewildered by the illusory false prestige inherent with technological industrialism and could concentrate more on the fundamental issues of atheism rather than thinking life is really going places because they can fly in a space shuttle
such as?
I don't have the thing in front of me, but he takes each argument for theism as a separate chapter. Other chapters include, addressing the notion that even if theism can't be proven, isn't there some good to it, wasn't Hitler and Stalin atheists and doesn't that mean it's bad, the value of theism in a literary sense (Shakespeare), is atheism a bleak POV, ect....