Dawkins' "The God Delusion": One of the best books I've read in a while.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DAGTA

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,172
1
0
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: Descartes
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Yeah ok if you want to call what we see, feel, hear, and touch a belief system then so be it.

I have to take the stance that math and our basis for science is true. If you want to call that a belief system then so be it.

I call it painfully obvious. My tv works because of science.

And yet you posted earlier about where "god" can hide? And how sure you are that this will be disproven, by some "new testament" in science?

You're delusional if you can't see you follow every single religion out there in your beliefs and motives. It is your belief system.

There's a very large difference between a metaphysical belief system and one about the natural world.

Codewiz's post about god "hiding" is described with appropriate lucidity in Dawkins' book, and he addresses the whole point of a belief system.

People in this thread are going to continue to argue out of ignorance, because those that are arguing simply haven't read the book. Agreeing with Dawkins isn't the issue; arguing against matters that were completely addressed by him is.

You are clearly a smarter man than I.

:)

I will drop this because I am partially the reason this has gone so far off course. I was hoping this thread could be used by people to discuss the book and ideas. Too bad that will never happen instead we have to argue with peope who haven't even read the book.

It's been a while but there was another thread about Dawkins sometime last year. It grew quite long, if I remember correctly. Maybe a search and bump of that thread would be more successful to the discussion.
 

Codewiz

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2002
5,758
0
76
Originally posted by: hans030390
I've heard the book brings up a lot of good points, but I've heard there are also a lot of good counter points to the book as well (you just have to find the right material, and a lot of it isn't).

I may read the book just to read it, but I don't have that kind of money.

To the OP, I wouldn't go around posting things that may relate to religion in some way...it usually doesn't end up well.

Head to B&N and read it. It is a quick and easy read......
 

hans030390

Diamond Member
Feb 3, 2005
7,326
2
76
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: hans030390
I've heard the book brings up a lot of good points, but I've heard there are also a lot of good counter points to the book as well (you just have to find the right material, and a lot of it isn't).

I may read the book just to read it, but I don't have that kind of money.

To the OP, I wouldn't go around posting things that may relate to religion in some way...it usually doesn't end up well.

Head to B&N and read it. It is a quick and easy read......

I don't have time to sit in a B&N either...also, it's 30 minutes away. I also don't recall a large novel sized book to be a quick and easy read.

If I do go sometime, I may look over it until I buy it.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: DAGTA
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Originally posted by: VenomXTF
Seek, where's your evidence. As you yourself said, your view of God is also "based more on your own biased perceptions, than by any evidence."
I believe that I addressed your question in my response to Codewiz. But, I will add that there is aspects of knowledge that do not come from physical evidence, therefore cannot be put in a testtube, nor perceived by the senses. But, to attempt to explain this in a fashion that a person without that exposure would understand is not realistic.

Funny enough, but your kind is exactly the target of the book - those who loudly proclaim to be in possession of some "truth" only they are privy to, that it is not possible to question your "truth" and to top it off, that everyone must respect you, defer to you and ultimately do as you tell them. That is precisely why people like Dawkins are speaking out.

You misunderstand. It is not a truth only he is privy to. Everyone has access, but most people are so caught up in ego and trying to blame others for everything that they fail to see anything else... or even try to. There is much more to this existence than we have been able to qualify and quantify so far. It's 'out there' for anyone willing to try to find it.

Of course, here on ATOT, a post like this is going to be rediculed by those that don't understand. ;)

I'm afraid it is you who misunderstands. If want access to his truth, I must read his book or go to a special school run by people like him, so that I may be told what the truth is. And what kind of truth is this? Truth that he says is truth, and I am not allowed to question it.

But isn't science the same? After all, it too has books and schools. Yes, in a superficial and meaningless way. The crucial difference is, you can arrive at those truths independently. Any reasonably bright person can verify for themselves any science done up until sometime in the late 1800s (after that, it simply requires more time and effort than individuals have). Think Newton was lying? Go ahead repeat his experiments, devise your own.

But can arrive at the same "truths" as SM without going through his organization? Can I get my own copy of the 10 commandments, or hear for myself the story of creation? Of course not, the very idea is preposterous.
 

Codewiz

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2002
5,758
0
76
Originally posted by: hans030390
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: hans030390
I've heard the book brings up a lot of good points, but I've heard there are also a lot of good counter points to the book as well (you just have to find the right material, and a lot of it isn't).

I may read the book just to read it, but I don't have that kind of money.

To the OP, I wouldn't go around posting things that may relate to religion in some way...it usually doesn't end up well.

Head to B&N and read it. It is a quick and easy read......

I don't have time to sit in a B&N either...also, it's 30 minutes away. I also don't recall a large novel sized book to be a quick and easy read.

If I do go sometime, I may look over it until I buy it.

How about this. Drop me a PM and I will mail my copy to you as long as you are willing to mail it back to me when you are done.

You will just have to wait until my wife finishes it.
 

Slackware

Banned
Jan 5, 2007
365
0
0
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Originally posted by: Codewiz
I would like to also add. You are free to believe whatever you want. But just because you decide to believe in an ancient historically inaccurate book in the face of SCIENTIFIC evidence, dont expect me to respect your beliefs. Just like you would have no respect for someone who believes in Zeus.

Your religious beliefs deserve the same amount of respect as someone who believes in Zeus. NONE.

You are free to believe whatever you want. Just don't expect me to bow to your idiotic belief system...
When did I say anything that indicated that I expect you to bow or believe in anything that I said? I thought that you might be capable of an objective discussion, but I see that I was wrong. I couldn't care less about what you believe about me or my beliefs, but that doesn't mean that I intend to feed your futile folly by responding to your denigrating remarks.

My biggest problem with your fith is that it is fueled by hate and not by love as you have shown in various threads.

It also is fundamentalistic in it's nature, you really do belive in a 10k year old earth and in Noah's ark and all of that.

You have absolutely not leaned humility, which is to be the first lesson of your saviour.
 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
Codewiz,

Head to B&N and read it. It is a quick and easy read......
If it is so quick and easy, then how do you account for the validity that you attribute to it? I mean, the subject is not one that can be dealt with in such a perfunctory fashion.
 

Codewiz

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2002
5,758
0
76
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Codewiz,

Head to B&N and read it. It is a quick and easy read......
If it is so quick and easy, then how do you account for the validity that you attribute to it? I mean, the subject is not one that can be dealt with in such a perfunctory fashion.

Dawkins writing style is EASY to read. As for quick. It is only around 300 pages which I consider short.......

All that has nothing to do with the fact that what he points out is SCIENTIFICALLY correct whether you want to "believe" in the science or not.
 

CKent

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
9,020
0
0
Originally posted by: SonnyDaze
**Yaaaawn**. Man, I just woke up. Whew......where am I? Oh yeah, I'm in ATOT.

<-------P&N.

If you bring it up to a mod you'll be told this is the forum for religion. I always sort of thought of P&N as the place for flamewars too, but that isn't necessarily so.

Anyway, anyone subscribing to the theory that there must be a god because of the things science can't yet explain should keep in mind this was used centuries ago and that science has come to explain one after another.

My suggestion to believers is to adapt to the times. Incorporate science into your belief system. Stop taking literally what was, if not in your belief originally written by Man, at the very least translated and copied a hundredfold over the centuries by him. Science (including evolution theory) and your God are not mutually exclusive; you only choose to view them as such.
 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I have no problem with anyone being skeptical about God. Nor do I mind that someone should speak, either in questions or statements that would make this apparent. However, when a person writes a book, which clearly denounces God, this is a step beyond. Even from the comments of the OP, it is obvious that it is impossible for anyone to disprove God. Therefore, all that is left is that someone simply airs their own beliefs, which are based primarily on their own biases. If a person has nothing more than this, then the only reason for writing such a book, is either for profit, notoriety or political influence.

A "step beyond" what exactly?

Let's slip that shoe on that other foot:

I have no problem with anyone not being skeptical about God. Nor do I mind that someone should speak, either in questions or statements that would make this apparent. However, when a person writes a book, which clearly praises God, this is a step beyond. Even from the comments of the OP, it is obvious that it is impossible for anyone to prove God. Therefore, all that is left is that someone simply airs their own beliefs, which are based primarily on their own biases. If a person has nothing more than this, then the only reason for writing such a book, is either for profit, notoriety or political influence

That should pinch your toes a bit :p

My point here is that no one can disprove the existance of "god" (although some of the biblical claims can certainly be cast in doubt), just as no one can prove the existance of "god" (although Carl Sagan proposes a method in "Contact" that I would accept). Your guess that "god" exists has no better standing than another person's guess that "god" does not exist.
Your insertion of your words into mine, is a good example of what many do when reading them. I do not expect you to understand or agree, but regardless of who belileve, I'm not guessing.

 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
All hail the Reformed Church of the flying spaghetti monster. THose of the orignal church are godless infidels and must die
 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
Originally posted by: Martin
I'm afraid it is you who misunderstands. If want access to his truth, I must read his book or go to a special school run by people like him, so that I may be told what the truth is. And what kind of truth is this? Truth that he says is truth, and I am not allowed to question it.

But isn't science the same? After all, it too has books and schools. Yes, in a superficial and meaningless way. The crucial difference is, you can arrive at those truths independently. Any reasonably bright person can verify for themselves any science done up until sometime in the late 1800s (after that, it simply requires more time and effort than individuals have). Think Newton was lying? Go ahead repeat his experiments, devise your own.

But can arrive at the same "truths" as SM without going through his organization? Can I get my own copy of the 10 commandments, or hear for myself the story of creation? Of course not, the very idea is preposterous.
There is no requirement to either read the Bible, or go to Church to learn about God. Of course, they can certainly be alot of help. There is nothing preposterous about a personal contact with God.

For you to judge God by the words and actions of anyone, whether they call themselves Christians or not...that is preposterous.

 

CKent

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
9,020
0
0
Originally posted by: Mo0o
All hail the Reformed Church of the flying spaghetti monster. THose of the orignal church are godless infidels and must die

JIHAD!! :laugh:
 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
Originally posted by: Slackware
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Originally posted by: Codewiz
I would like to also add. You are free to believe whatever you want. But just because you decide to believe in an ancient historically inaccurate book in the face of SCIENTIFIC evidence, dont expect me to respect your beliefs. Just like you would have no respect for someone who believes in Zeus.

Your religious beliefs deserve the same amount of respect as someone who believes in Zeus. NONE.

You are free to believe whatever you want. Just don't expect me to bow to your idiotic belief system...
When did I say anything that indicated that I expect you to bow or believe in anything that I said? I thought that you might be capable of an objective discussion, but I see that I was wrong. I couldn't care less about what you believe about me or my beliefs, but that doesn't mean that I intend to feed your futile folly by responding to your denigrating remarks.

My biggest problem with your fith is that it is fueled by hate and not by love as you have shown in various threads.

It also is fundamentalistic in it's nature, you really do belive in a 10k year old earth and in Noah's ark and all of that.

You have absolutely not leaned humility, which is to be the first lesson of your saviour.
When you make statements such as this, it is abundantly clear that you are not qualified to instruct me on what lessons that I need about Christian behavior.

 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Martin,

Funny enough, but your kind is exactly the target of the book - those who loudly proclaim to be in possession of some "truth" only they are privy to, that it is not possible to question your "truth" and to top it off, that everyone must respect you, defer to you and ultimately do as you tell them. That is precisely why people like Dawkins are speaking out.

I didn't realize that I was speaking so loudly to you, since I have not typed anything in bold. Or is it that if anyone has a differing opinion for your own is to brazen for you? If you will go back to my first post, I clearly said that I had no problem with anyone having questions or making statements contrary to my own beliefs. So, how does that constitue a demand for respect or obedience?

Because I remember a silly discussion we had in P&N about the age of the earth, whereby you couldn't quite say it was as old as scientists say it is. But perhaps I am wrong and if you denounce ID, creationism and all those attacks on science (that is, non-public school etc) that I remember (sorry, too lazy to search and I don't remember the title), then I'd certain have to take back the above.
 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
Originally posted by: Martin
Because I remember a silly discussion we had in P&N about the age of the earth, whereby you couldn't quite say it was as old as scientists say it is. But perhaps I am wrong and if you denounce ID, creationism and all those attacks on science (that is, non-public school etc) that I remember (sorry, too lazy to search and I don't remember the title), then I'd certain have to take back the above.
I recall the thread, and I recall what I said, but I'm not going to repeat it, because if you didn't understand it then, you won't now. But, just for argument's sake, even if you were right, that should have no bearing on the discussion here. It is a new day and discussion. The debate should be about what is written here, without clouding it with distorted memories.

 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: CKent
Originally posted by: Mo0o
All hail the Reformed Church of the flying spaghetti monster. THose of the orignal church are godless infidels and must die

JIHAD!! :laugh:

This must be the First Great Schism I heard about. But isn't it too soon? After all, our 8 "I'd really rather you didn't"s were just published!
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Let me quote a little passage from the first book

Scientists say, ?We have a problem. There are not enough
stars and moons and asteroids to hold the universe together.?
This is called the ?Missing Mass? problem. Everything
should be flying apart, but it is staying together. A creationist
can say, ?I know what holds the universe together in spite of
the ?Missing Mass? problem?the Lord Jesus, the Creator
holds it all together by His great power? (Hebrews 1 and
Colossians 1). When the Bible refers to science, it may not be
exhaustive, but it is accurate. We can trust it.

The above passage combined with Jobe's previous grossly inaccurate descriptions of the big bang show that Jobe has no intention of using rational thought. The guy is clearly an idiot.

Wow, impressive.
Everything IS flying apart. Our lifespans are too damned tiny to just go look out the window a half lifetime from now and say, "Gee, the Sun sure has gotten far away, I can barely see it anymore!"
They use the Bible to add validity to their God/Lord. The Bible is also where the story of God and Jesus is written.
"Wikipedia is true. Why? Because Wikipedia says that it is true."
What's the similarity? Both use circular logic.


Originally posted by: blackllotus

The "missing mass problem" is a real issue, however to claim that Jesus is the answer to the problem is flaky at best.
There's a theory that I am quite interested in - that simulations of galaxies and their various interactions, or even collisions, use Newtonian physics in their calculations. They do not use general relativity, because these calculations are quite complex. I recall a study where GR was used for some test simulations, and that they were able to account for the "missing mass." In GR, objects increase in mass as their velocity increases. If you're talking about stars moving at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour, while it's not a high percentage of the speed of light, it will still yield a significant increase in mass.
Something else I wonder if they're taking into account in these simulations: the speed of gravity. As I understand it, gravity's influence is limited to the speed of light. If the sun were to suddenly wink out of existence, the cessation of both light and gravity would affect us at the same time - about 8.3 minutes after the fact. So in the simulation, let's say a star is flying past another one. It'd be like watching a jet fly far overhead. If you look at where the sound is, you won't see the jet. You need to look ahead of the sound to see the jet. Same with a star whizzing by another one. Where the simulation says the star is, that's not where it'll appear to be from the POV of another star. From that POV, the gravity well will lag behind the star's actual position.

 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
I'm late to the party but here are my views...

I never mind people questioning my faith in God (I am a bad orthodox christian...but hey). Dawkins' book does not bother me at all.

I am year away from getting my Ph.D. in chemical engineering (thesis in nanotechnology)... to me, the existence of God or some supernatural power is self evident. One of my friends is a Ph.D. condensed matter / particle physicist... he also believes along my same line of thinking.

There is a lot of mass and energy in the universe, yet we also have a law that says mass and energy can be neither created or destroyed; that alone predicates the supernatural... that which is beyond "natural law" as we understand it. There exist other anomalies as well...evolution of life, concepts of morality and ethics in the human psyche, etc.

The difference between me and my friend and scientists who don't believe in God is how to explain the anomalies that we have already observed. I say "supernatural"... that there will always be aspects of our understanding of cosmology, etc. that will be beyond "natural law". Other scientists say "we just don't understand it yet" but we will. Both points of view require some faith, just in different things.

Moreover, I have seen some crazy, crazy things in my life. So either I'm crazy or "seeing is believing". I can't pretend I didn't witness the things I've seen.

As to "why Christianity?"... well, it just resonates with/in my soul.
 
S

SlitheryDee

I haven't read anything by Dawkins but he's got to be pretty interesting to cause such a ruckus. I think I might check this one out.
 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
SlitheryDee,

I haven't read anything by Dawkins but he's got to be pretty interesting to cause such a ruckus. I think I might check this one out.

That is exactly the purpose of such books, movies, etc....to raise enough ruckus to get people to pay their money to listen to them on their soapbox.
 

Codewiz

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2002
5,758
0
76
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
SlitheryDee,

I haven't read anything by Dawkins but he's got to be pretty interesting to cause such a ruckus. I think I might check this one out.

That is exactly the purpose of such books, movies, etc....to raise enough ruckus to get people to pay their money to listen to them on their soapbox.

Since you haven't read the book, how the f would you know? This is your only refuge for attacking Dawkins because you fail in every other aspect.

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

There is a lot of mass and energy in the universe, yet we also have a law that says mass and energy can be neither created or destroyed; that alone predicates the supernatural... that which is beyond "natural law" as we understand it. There exist other anomalies as well...evolution of life, concepts of morality and ethics in the human psyche, etc.

Actually all those concerns are addressible. Such as morality, Dawkins addresses this in his book. He goes to great lengths to show that morality has its basis in evolution not religion.

As for mass and energy neither created or destroyed. I assume you mean "who created the matter of the universe". For that question, you have to look at how we view things. It is through the passage of time. Without time, there is no need for it to be "created", it just always was there. No different than some "God" that always existed.

 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
I'm late to the party but here are my views...

I never mind people questioning my faith in God (I am a bad orthodox christian...but hey). Dawkins' book does not bother me at all.

I am year away from getting my Ph.D. in chemical engineering (thesis in nanotechnology)... to me, the existence of God or some supernatural power is self evident. One of my friends is a Ph.D. condensed matter / particle physicist... he also believes along my same line of thinking.

There is a lot of mass and energy in the universe, yet we also have a law that says mass and energy can be neither created or destroyed; that alone predicates the supernatural... that which is beyond "natural law" as we understand it. There exist other anomalies as well...evolution of life, concepts of morality and ethics in the human psyche, etc.

The difference between me and my friend and scientists who don't believe in God is how to explain the anomalies that we have already observed. I say "supernatural"... that there will always be aspects of our understanding of cosmology, etc. that will be beyond "natural law". Other scientists say "we just don't understand it yet" but we will. Both points of view require some faith, just in different things.

Moreover, I have seen some crazy, crazy things in my life. So either I'm crazy or "seeing is believing". I can't pretend I didn't witness the things I've seen.

As to "why Christianity?"... well, it just resonates with/in my soul.

I'm not gonna summarize his book (I don't want to waste my time and I'd do a poor job anyway), but I'll say that he talks about pretty much everything you mentioned - mainly why you do not necessarily need a supernatural to explain the universe, life, morals etc.



And lest I be accused of being a part of some vast conspiracy to make money for Dawkins (along the lines of SM's posts), I should say that I borrowed this book from a friend, who in turn has it on loan from the library. Before he gave it to me, he lent it to 4 other people...