The God delusion by Richard Dawkings

Some people (like Dawkins' fellow atheist Philip Pullman for example) simply want to impose their views on others, which is why they hate organized religion so much. Because organized religion has succeeded in swaying people into believing them much more than all the Richard Dawkins and Philip Pullmans of the world combined ever did.

I am not a fan of organized religion either, but the way Dawkins formulates his "scripture" is a dogmatic as the religious scripture, i find it highly colored by emotions and not scientific

My point exactly. People should be free to believe what they want no matter how absurd it may sound to a non-believer, as long as they are not hurting or cheating anyone. As what you have noted, Dawkins is himself no better than any religious zealot in wanting to impose his atheist views on everyone else. Incidentally, the way Dawkins and Pullman go about it, atheism is just another religion, albeit one that worships no deity.

The problem is that someone who is a long time believer (E.g. Christian) has been indoctrinated since childhood, and convincing that maybe their believe structure is not true usually falls on deaf ears.

Scientifically speaking there is still no proof that a god exist, but i find it highly arrogant from the Scientific community to state there is no god period, as a still is not known about our universe, maybe god does not exist in a way or form we understand, maybe we will find a god particle in quantum physics.

The human race show an irritating arrogance in stating that they have the answer or god or whatever.

Maybe it is not the Jews God, or the Christians God or the Muslim God, but the God of species uiuieuixfltr from the Planet Bloobie.

I believe that many very clever people have an unshakable belief in the existence of God, Allah, Jehovah or a supreme being. Many, if not most of my friends fall into that category. I do not believe that the Scientific community states emphatically that there is no god, period. On the contrary, it has been established over the years that many of the finest scientists, mathematicians, architects, engineers, (dare I say lawyers?) have been devout Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists or have other religious affiliations.

It is not important what I believe. It is only important that we are able to get along together in this very small globe without killing each other because of religious differences which, in any case, can probably never be reconciled.

I am not pleased when I read about Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan as a result of a roadside bombing. The families of those soldiers are totally devastated.

I am not religious...I am a pacifist. I would dearly love to see complete harmony among all the peoples of the world. Will it come? I hope so. But don't hold your breath!

GA. Religion itself is not evil, it is when power-hungry people corrupt its teachings for their own selfish ends that it becomes a problem. The best possible proof of this can be seen in two widely contrasting individuals, Professor Muhammad Yunus, the economics professor and founder of microcredit, and Osama bin Laden. Both are Muslims, but while Professor Yunus is a good man who works hard to alleviate poverty around the world, bin Laden is a power-hungry madman who corrupts religion in his mad quest to rule the world. Incidentally, if Muslims around the world were to really compare what the Koran actually says with what bin Laden preaches, he will probably be stoned to death for blasphemy.

Well we could do the same thing Bin Laden does and it would be okay according the old testament, I guess the Koran is similar to the bible in that context.

And what EMC says in the beginning of the middle ages the Vatican was the state they were that powerful.

Not at all obvious what point is being made here - maybe a language problem.

A "moral equivalency" is set up between the Bible and the Koran. I'm not going to buy off on that, but if you grant that premise for the sake of argument, then it just makes my point further that the stark difference in behavior between western secular democracies and the fundamentalist Middle East is totally due to the separation of church and state in the west, and the total identity of the two in fundamentalist Muslim countries.

Also the difference between the behavior of the Catholic Church in medieval times vs. today. Same difference, same explanation.

Religion backed by the power of the state has resulted in the loss of thousands or millions of lives. Given that states have also killed millions of people on purely nonreligious grounds, the only logical deduction from this is that it is power that corrupts religion, not the other way around.

i mean that In the early middle ages the church (Vatican) did not need the states (countries) backing to sway large massed of people doing their bidding (the crusades for example.

And the point i was trying to make was according the Old testament we could do to the Muslims what the Muslim fundamentalist do to us and it would be okay as they are heathens.

The only difference between the Western and eastern countries is that they have the same intermingled religious political system as the west had in the middle ages.

so i guess we agree on that.

on another note it seems that America is showing signs that politics and religion start to intermingle again which in my opinion is a bad thing (the whole Intelligent design thing)

I believe that all of the comments given so far request the true existence of God or proof of such a being. My brother always said that there is never an atheist in a fox hole or on your death bed. I am sure even those who profess to be non-believers still ask for salvation when their time runs down. But, for those of you who still demand proof, consider the Big Bang. Where did the material for it come from to start with and what set it off? Through out the history of man kind, it was the holy men who set the mores of the tribes so that we could have laws to protect us from our fellow men. Don't kill your neighbor, don't bed his wife, don't steal from him, etc. These laws were and still are necessary to establish a better way of life for man and his family. It is the same in all religions around the globe, they are the watch dogs to keep the bad guys honest.

The idea that "there are no atheists in foxholes" may be true, but is not a convincing or even good argument for religion.

The idea here is that when you are scared and you have no control over a situation, and there is nothing you can do to improve your condition, then you turn to God. Well, another alternative is panic. These are both human responses to situations outside our control. One cannot say that either of these responses has any intrinsic value.

Note I am no foe of religion, mostly a defender, especially of the morality component.

I have just always found this foxhole argument completely specious.

It is the same in all religions around the globe, they are the watch dogs to keep the bad guys honest.

LOL.. well they aren't doing a very good job are they?

Belief is one step off right and wrong, right and wrong is one step off punishment and reward. Human nature is the same regardless if one believes in god or not.

And belief as I remember was a journey I went through during my youth. What criteria does one use to believe some thing? I came to believe that the reverse is true and we believe as a child does, and our own experiences are used to disbelieve, and as I have not yet experienced death, I feel punishment and reward is unlikely, if not impossible? Though I do believe there is right and a wrong, and some times in history that is important.

Regards JD.

I see your point, I think however that as well as massaging his own ego he is trying to redress the balance. Afterall religion has seeped into the fabric and culture of our society and is dripped down our throats constantly.
On thing I admire about the USA is the separation of church and state and that religion isn't allowed in school. However, the religious influence in law and school is still huge. The (many) recent documentaries on Darwin show how American attitudes have been shaped on this subject...we are all a product of our parents/society and culture. I come from (on my Mothers side) a family of left wing, pacifist atheists ( quelle surprise!)
What really annoys me is that both camps set out to alienate and antagonise eachother.
Darwinism doesn't preclude the existence of God, nor does the existence of a God preclude Darwinism.
The very literal brand of 'creationism' is in fact relatively new and wasn't believed at the time of the 'teaching Darwinism' trial.
I prob' wont contribute further to this as you all know my views.
I do find it slightly odd that this thread is about Dawkins style rather than the content.
Brevquot exceeded...shutdown immediate

Del

well it is about style but it already has comments on content.

But what balance? atheist don't need to read this book aswel they already believe there is no god, maybe only for conformation?

I agree mostly with what he writes but i find his writing style arrogant and condescending.

Maybe he should revise his book and write "the god delusion for dummies"

But what balance?
Writing a book is about the only pro-atheism message he can get out there...(oh and putting an advert on the side of London busses)
Christianity, has a whole swarm of constant cultural influences...every pretty old church, most public holidays... the way christianity has appropriated our customs and language...and is soaked into our history.
Atheism is by definition more difficult to teach/preach.
After all kids don't get lessons on the non-existence of the Bogeyman do they?...but they get lessons on the existence of God (in most UK primary schools)
I think all faith schools should be banned and the teaching of any religion in schools.
I believe we should be free to follow any religion but not to try to convert anyone else.

In case I havn't explained myself clearly, imagine a physical balance...
On one side huge pro-God influences (as described already)
On the other a miniscule pile of Atheism influences (virtually nil)...
The scales are tipped heavilly pro-God.
Which is odd as if he exists you'd think he could provide sufficient evidence of his own existence.
Del

So what? I have personally known arrogant, aggressive and egoistic Christians. Some of Dawkins detractors have also been. Why is this conversation become about belief, rather than if you agree with Epke's assessment of Dawkins style or the importance of the book.

I haven't read the God Delusion: and don't intend to. Someone gave me "Climbing Mount Improbable" a few years ago: I found it very distasteful and didn't bother to read it all.

Dawkins is a promoter, not a scientist. A scientist is dispassionate, and never discards factual evidence contrary to a "theory" or hypothesis. A scientist builds new theory from old on the basis of new facts. A promoter, on the other hand, finds ways of circumventing, discarding, or glossing over the facts that don't suit. This is not science and is of no benefit to science.

I can't imagine his views on religion are a bit enlightening, and it doesn't surprise me to hear that this book is derogatory to others.