Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion Page 2

  • afray 26 Sep 2006 16:30:02 2,248 posts
    Seen 5 years ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Saw Dawkins on Heaven and Earth at the weekend actually, came across as a bit of a bitter nobber to be honest. Will read his book eventually.

    I saw that. Thought he did incredibly well to restrain himself from leaping across the studio and decking Gloria Huniford when she asked him for the eight time if he could prove there was no God. Muppet.
  • Deleted user 26 September 2006 16:31:29
    I don't understand the point of the book, though, and I really have read it.

    This isn't going to 'convert' or subvert his word across people who don't already share his beliefs, or even share the (in ways) belligerent way that he makes them known.

    So, the only people that'll read it are those who don't have strong feelings either way (is there such a person? And even if there is, do they care enough about it to read this diatribe?), or those who don't particularly care for religion in the first place.

    All the book made me realise, is that Richard Dawkins is a bit of a twat.
  • afray 26 Sep 2006 16:32:25 2,248 posts
    Seen 5 years ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    warlockuk wrote:
    I've just realised I've seen Richard Dawkins on Jonathan Miller's "The Atheism Tapes". Quite interesting, I'll have to check out some of his older books - esp the blind watchmaker that The Aardvark mentioned.

    Great show.
  • Shrimp 26 Sep 2006 16:34:06 1,081 posts
    Seen 12 years ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    I thought the last two paragraphs of that review were interesting:


    First, Mr Dawkins wants to subvert the mode of transmission between parent and child. He calls a religious upbringing a form of indoctrination and equates it to child abuse. He wants to encourage a change in the Zeitgeist, so that when people hear the words “a Catholic child”, or “a Muslim child”, they will wince, and ask how a child could already have formed independent opinions on transubstantiation or jihad.

    His second and related plan is to energise atheists, whom he regards as being in the same situation as homosexuals were 50 years ago: stigmatised and unelectable to public office (in America, at least). Mr Dawkins dreams of a day when atheists are as well organised and influential as Christian conservatives have become. If nothing else, his book should help bring the atheists out of the closet.

    You didn't think it worked on those levels?

    edit.. in quoting that I should probably qualify it by saying that the "child abuse" claim is probably pretty representative of his over-aggressive stance.

    Edited by Shrimp at 16:38:12 26-09-2006
  • Deleted user 26 September 2006 16:39:07
    PES_Fanboy wrote:
    I don't understand the point of the book, though, and I really have read it.

    This isn't going to 'convert' or subvert his word across people who don't already share his beliefs, or even share the (in ways) belligerent way that he makes them known.

    So, the only people that'll read it are those who don't have strong feelings either way (is there such a person? And even if there is, do they care enough about it to read this diatribe?), or those who don't particularly care for religion in the first place.

    All the book made me realise, is that Richard Dawkins is a bit of a twat.

    A lot of people have an active interest in theology, regardless of whether they are theists or atheists.

    Edited by kalel at 16:42:30 26-09-2006
  • Deleted user 26 September 2006 16:44:18
    I understand the interest in theology across the strata of beliefs, I just question whether this book goes anywhere constructive for those looking for answers or reasonable proposition.

    As a deeply cynical agnostic, this book served no real use to me, like I said the only people that this book will serve are those who have already settled in the Dawkins camp - and that isn't necessarily the same camp as ALL athiests will find themselves in...

    Edited by PES_Fanboy at 16:45:22 26-09-2006
  • Onny 26 Sep 2006 16:44:56 5,695 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Extract from the BBC website. Interesting read.
  • mull 26 Sep 2006 16:45:38 463 posts
    Seen 11 months ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    Well, from some of the reviews I've read it sounds a bit irritating, to be honest; this one, for example, basically states that he is giving his arguments in a the same 'fundamentalist' style as ever. I do love Dawkins for his steely determination, but I think he does atheists/humanists few favours with way he presents his arguments.

    For the record, I recommend 'The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch' By Pratchett, Stewart and Cohen. A book which both entertains with the Discworld stuff and very clearly argues for evolutions primacy.
  • Universal_Hamster 26 Sep 2006 16:45:55 4,948 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Shrimp wrote:
    edit.. in quoting that I should probably qualify it by saying that the "child abuse" claim is probably pretty representative of his over-aggressive stance.
    Im not so sure about that. Ever spent A night crying your eyes out because you are going to hell? To be tortured endlessly with not a moments respite? I have. Several times, and I can safely say its not much fun.

    Aaaand while im at it, I may as well admit that this stuff stays with you, even though Im all growed up now, It can still do my head in on occasion.

    Edited by Universal Hamster at 16:48:28 26-09-2006
  • warlockuk 26 Sep 2006 16:48:58 19,500 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Rooney wrote:
    May I recommend the hammock? with a side table and homemade lemonade.... :)

    If I don't have these things around me I can't read and resort to audio books.

    I don't have a hammock to hand either but I live near the woods and the local park is pretty nice. Grab some beers, campfire, go hang out with the hippies or sommat. Take some death metal with me. Job's a goodun.

    Oh yeah, anyone seen that cartoon Metalocalypse? Genius.
  • warlockuk 26 Sep 2006 16:51:31 19,500 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Shrimp wrote:
    I thought the last two paragraphs of that review were interesting:

    You didn't think it worked on those levels?

    edit.. in quoting that I should probably qualify it by saying that the "child abuse" claim is probably pretty representative of his over-aggressive stance.

    I think it might help a bit, yeah... I find reading stuff about religion in general perks me up a bit as it's good to know you're not alone in your feelings - that works whether you're an Atheist, Catholic or whatever.

    I wouldn't say "child abuse" was necessarily aggressive though. I'm quite grateful that my parents didn't subject me to religion at an early age - otherwise when I came to Atheism I'd either think my parents were misguided or misled or that they kinda lied to me...

    ...and as someone's already pointed out - the amount of Catholic kids who must cry themselves to sleep 'cos their grandma said they're going to Hell. Or to Purgatory. Though on the upside they have a cool doggie down there. He can eat, drink and lick his own balls at the same time :)

    *edit* Hey! I wonder if Hetaera can do that!

    Edited by warlockuk at 16:53:11 26-09-2006
  • Deleted user 26 September 2006 16:55:15
    Rooney wrote:
    PES_Fanboy wrote:
    I said the only people that this book will serve are those who have already settled in the Dawkins camp



    It'll serve the people that any other book with a strong opinion will serve, you can't think you know this book's range solely from your opinion of it.


    yes, it'll attract the fans that want to be reassured or whatever and it might convert some fairweather christians....(99% of christians that is)

    it'll also have dawkin haters picking it apart to make themselves feel better.



    I would think (hope), that the majority of the book's open-minded readers would (although it is, admittedly, beautifully written) find that Dawkins selective process in which he quotes and singles out individuals is in exact contravention of the same thing his main gripe was about - interpretation of the bible, literal and metaphorical.

    I honestly imagine I'm firmly in the 'undecided' camp when I came to read this book, but the hypocrisy and bile that was contained within really turned me off to the point at which I thought (you can tell when it's my opinion when I type things in) it was irrelevancy. You are not given much reasoning, Dawkins drives his point across as though it is as infallible as that which he is decrying.

    As others have said better on this thread, it's another form of fundamentalism

    Edited by PES_Fanboy at 16:58:49 26-09-2006
  • Shrimp 26 Sep 2006 17:08:02 1,081 posts
    Seen 12 years ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    It's not fundamentalism... more like rather disrespectful (and counterproductive) intolerance. I don't think you can be a fundamentalist without some kind of holy text or recieved wisdom to base it on.

    Bit of a semantic quibble I suppose...

    Sorry to hear about that Uni Hamster. My parents were (and are) atheist/agnostic but the local primary school was C of E, so I only got a mild dose. One of the teachers did systematically glue pages together in books about halloween, ghosts, etc.

    Never did figure out what she was trying to achieve!
  • Deleted user 26 September 2006 17:13:35
    I just think atheism by its very nature is very finite like that. I agree that Dawkins comes across a bit strongly, but criticising him for not allowing for any fallibility in his arguments seems unfair, as surely that is the nature of atheism, if not, is it not just agnosticism?
  • BillGaitas 26 Sep 2006 17:19:51 276 posts
    Seen 6 years ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    i had a pretty religious education and never cried afraid of going to hell

    I cant even understand what kind of situation could make such a thing happen, problably a bad family or some bastard.

    the only religious crap that could make me cry when i was a young kid would be telling me that religion is bad, my parents are bad because they are religious and that when they'll die their personality will vanish in oblivion

    Seems to me that this guy is just ignoring the whole picture. I dont know if god exists, but i do know this: without christianism, and a few other religions, history would have been much more violent.

    edit:
    and comparing child abuse with religious upbringing is just pathethic. Maybe if he experienced it(child abuse) he wouldnt claim such a thing.

    Edited by BillGaitas at 17:21:57 26-09-2006

    Edited by BillGaitas at 17:22:12 26-09-2006
  • Shrimp 26 Sep 2006 17:29:37 1,081 posts
    Seen 12 years ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    BillGaitas wrote:
    Seems to me that this guy is just ignoring the whole picture. I dont know if god exists, but i do know this: without christianism, and a few other religions, history would have been much more violent.

    I find it slightly hard to believe that the Crusades would have been more violent without religion!

    "We don't believe this is our Holy Land!"

    "Nor do we!"

    "Lets kill each other!"
  • Pike 26 Sep 2006 17:33:48 13,459 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    BillGaitas wrote:
    Seems to me that this guy is just ignoring the whole picture. I dont know if god exists, but i do know this: without christianism, and a few other religions, history would have been much more violent.

    lol
  • Deleted user 26 September 2006 17:35:55
    Can't believe you all took that bait.
  • BillGaitas 26 Sep 2006 17:44:31 276 posts
    Seen 6 years ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Shrimp wrote:
    BillGaitas wrote:
    Seems to me that this guy is just ignoring the whole picture. I dont know if god exists, but i do know this: without christianism, and a few other religions, history would have been much more violent.

    I find it slightly hard to believe that the Crusades would have been more violent without religion!

    "We don't believe this is our Holy Land!"

    "Nor do we!"

    "Lets kill each other!"


    there were wars much more viloent than the crusades and didnt had nothing to do with religion. The problem isnt religion but the people who abuse it.

    And you can find a lot more blood in history than the one that is in religions hands

    im not flaming and even if i couldnt care less if any of you feel offend by the fact that i dont agree with this man, if this goes that way ill stop

    Edited by BillGaitas at 17:46:16 26-09-2006
  • Shrimp 26 Sep 2006 17:53:02 1,081 posts
    Seen 12 years ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Actually, I'd agree that religion has been very important during human history as a glue to hold societies together. I just think it's done its job now.

    Fundamentalism is going to get worse for the foreseeable future I think.
  • BillGaitas 26 Sep 2006 17:58:55 276 posts
    Seen 6 years ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Shrimp wrote:
    Actually, I'd agree that religion has been very important during human history as a glue to hold societies together. I just think it's done its job now.

    Fundamentalism is going to get worse for the foreseeable future I think.

    Im not so sure about that, but ill wait and see.

    But just because i dont agree with you at the moment that doesnt mean i dont acknowledge that there might be some truth in your words
  • Retroid Moderator 26 Sep 2006 18:00:08 45,464 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    Shrimp quoted:
    First, Mr Dawkins wants to subvert the mode of transmission between parent and child. He calls a religious upbringing a form of indoctrination and equates it to child abuse. He wants to encourage a change in the Zeitgeist, so that when people hear the words “a Catholic child”, or “a Muslim child”, they will wince, and ask how a child could already have formed independent opinions on transubstantiation or jihad.
    I happen to pretty much agree with that.

    Makes me feel very creepy to hear fundies indoctrinate their children to the point of violent opposition to other viewpoints :(
  • ProfessorLesser 26 Sep 2006 18:17:40 19,693 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Gremmi wrote:
    Richard Dawkins may have a valid point somewhere, and I'm sure his books are good, but from what I've seen of him on TV he comes across such an arrogant, stubborn cunt I have virtually no inclination to read them.
    Unfortunately this is more or less the truth. I read the blurb of The God Delusion today and just thought to myself "I've got my own views thanks, Mr. Dawkins." Why anyone should give a toss what he thinks is beyond me, particularly when a lot of people don't need convincing in the first place. He's like albundy in that respect.

    The Selfish Gene is worth reading though, up until the last chapter, which is absurd.
  • FairgroundTown 28 Sep 2006 10:58:50 2,522 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    I bought it yesterday, and have read about 1/3. He is preaching to the converted with me, but it has its laugh-out-loud moments as he tears into the church and the bible!
  • Deleted user 19 October 2006 01:46:32
    Dawkins on Colbert
  • Deleted user 19 October 2006 01:48:41
    watch out for this line

    "Do both of those mean you surrender?" :)
Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.