The God Delusion - by Richard Dawkins

[Gray]

For the same reason that atheists are criticised for not having read the bible cover to cover, I would be interested to know how many of you have read The God Delusion?

I'm sure you've all at least heard of it, but here's a short review...
The God Delusion - Book Reviews - Books - Entertainment - smh.com.au

[Someday]

I've read it. Cover to cover. I used to consider Dawkins to be a professional atheist, now I don't give him that much credit. It's a shame, his earlier books were so good. I particularly liked "The selfish Gene". In the "God Delusion", he left his logic at the door. He calls his own arguments irrefutable, and at one point tries to scientifically disprove the existence of God with philosophical argumentation. Since when is that possible? He should stick to what he actually knows something about

Anyway, take this for what it is, an opinion. I'm sure yours is quite the opposite.


Blessings

[JM]

Originally Posted by Someday

I've read it. Cover to cover. I used to consider Dawkins to be a professional atheist, now I don't give him that much credit. It's a shame, his earlier books were so good. I particularly liked "The selfish Gene". In the "God Delusion", he left his logic at the door. He calls his own arguments irrefutable, and at one point tries to scientifically disprove the existence of God with philosophical argumentation. Since when is that possible? He should stick to what he actually knows something about

Anyway, take this for what it is, an opinion. I'm sure yours is quite the opposite.


Blessings

Yeah Dawkins wasn't given much credibility at all by atheists themselves, I have a number of friends who dont believe and are agnostic who found it weak.

apparently this was just a weak attempt at trying to explain away through his limited ideas the existence of God.

poor chap,

[Gray]

Originally Posted by Someday

... his earlier books were so good. I particularly liked "The selfish Gene".

Don't his earlier books, concentrating more on the biological aspects, go against the mainstream view of creation? That may not bother you, but it certainly wouldn't get any sort of praise from the majority.

He calls his own arguments irrefutable, and at one point tries to scientifically disprove the existence of God with philosophical argumentation. Since when is that possible?

Aren't yours irrefutable?

Can you remind me where I find that particular point?

Anyway, take this for what it is, an opinion. I'm sure yours is quite the opposite.

Yes, it is.

[Someday]

Can you remind me where I find that particular point?

Chapter 4. "Why There Almost Certainly is No God". He considers this his strongest argument. The whole 747 gambit and his argumentation here is what I refer to. He does some nice question begging here.

My arguments are refutable. Sometimes I even change my mind. I didn't used to believe in the Christian God for example. But alas, woe to secular humanism, they lost me to a higher cause. Not that secular humanists particularly miss me and my former contributions to the cause, nor do I expect they even care. (sigh)

Blessings

[Commodore Angryy]

I've never read, or watched any of Dawkin's stuff. I figure that if my own arguments and opinions aren't strong enough, why bother trying to strengthen them with someone elses.

How many people have watched John Saffran Vs. God?

[Gray]

I've found that Prof Dawkins has a way with words that helps me express my arguments more clearly (without repeating him verbatim).

Saffran v God. Funny, funny, funny.
Was that the series where he was in Israel and kicked the footy over the fence into Lebanon and had to go and ask for it back?

[JM]

Originally Posted by Gray

I've found that Prof Dawkins has a way with words that helps me express my arguments more clearly (without repeating him verbatim).

Saffran v God. Funny, funny, funny.
Was that the series where he was in Israel and kicked the footy over the fence into Lebanon and had to go and ask for it back?

Prof Dorkins .... has swung the pendalum so far the other way.. that where as their are areas in Christianity which has lost credibility..

There are areas within Dorkins ideas which have zero credibility..

Just more assumptions among many.