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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Seekermeister

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

When quoting me, don't quote someone else in the same thread without labeling it properly. I have enough problems responding to your remarks about my words, without doing so for someone else's. RE: The second post above.
 

Codewiz

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

When quoting me, don't quote someone else in the same thread without labeling it properly. I have enough problems responding to your remarks about my words, without doing so for someone else's.

Cry me a river...........
 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Codewiz,

When quoting me, don't quote someone else in the same thread without labeling it properly. I have enough problems responding to your remarks about my words, without doing so for someone else's.

Cry me a river...........
In other words, you have no honor and say anything that pleases you at the moment. Perhaps that is why I don't give your posts any credence.

 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Martin
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...

Ahhh, I see.

So sharing the word of the messiah, eh? What next? Wandering parking lots handing out the bible?

Martin, I'm really not trolling. I'm just merely pointing out what is so painstakingly obvious.
 

Codewiz

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

When quoting me, don't quote someone else in the same thread without labeling it properly. I have enough problems responding to your remarks about my words, without doing so for someone else's.

Cry me a river...........
In other words, you have no honor and say anything that pleases you at the moment. Perhaps that is why I don't give your posts any credence.

No, it is called, the post in question was just a few posts above mine. Didn't think it would be that big of a deal. Certainly didn't think you would WHINE about it. Here have some cheese.

 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Codewiz,

When quoting me, don't quote someone else in the same thread without labeling it properly. I have enough problems responding to your remarks about my words, without doing so for someone else's.

Cry me a river...........
In other words, you have no honor and say anything that pleases you at the moment. Perhaps that is why I don't give your posts any credence.

Um, Seekermeister, you've done the same thing yourself. Here, exactly as you posted it:

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.

There is a quote within yours, with no "label" on it.
 

Codewiz

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2002
5,758
0
76
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Codewiz,

When quoting me, don't quote someone else in the same thread without labeling it properly. I have enough problems responding to your remarks about my words, without doing so for someone else's.

Cry me a river...........
In other words, you have no honor and say anything that pleases you at the moment. Perhaps that is why I don't give your posts any credence.

Um, Seekermeister, you've done the same thing yourself. Here, exactly as you posted it:

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.

There is a quote within yours, with no "label" on it.

His issue is that I quoted him and I replied to him.....

Then I quoted a totally different person and replied without citing who the quote was from. My mistake was thinking that since the quote in question was a few lines up, it wouldn't be a big deal.

I forgot he was the forum police on how to post.

 

Slackware

Banned
Jan 5, 2007
365
0
0
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
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.

As i said, with that kind of arrogance in the name of christ, you will be lucky if you CAN ever repent, humility my friend is the only way to meet your saviour, humility is something you cannot express and so you can never be saved. All you have to offer is arrogace.
 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
jeff7,

There is a quote within yours, with no "label" on it.
No. That post is just like this one, it is addressed directly to you, and there is no confusion about the fact that the quote is your's.
 

Codewiz

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2002
5,758
0
76
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
jeff7,

There is a quote within yours, with no "label" on it.
No. That post is just like this one, it is addressed directly to you, and there is no confusion about the fact that the quote is your's.

So again, why are you in this thread Seekermeister. The OP didn't ask for opinions from people that didn't read the book.

You basically want to derail the conversation.

So why are you posting in this thread. What do you have to add of value?
 

Slackware

Banned
Jan 5, 2007
365
0
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Martin
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...

Ahhh, I see.

So sharing the word of the messiah, eh? What next? Wandering parking lots handing out the bible?

Martin, I'm really not trolling. I'm just merely pointing out what is so painstakingly obvious.

You exclaim that you are a follower of the christ but the humility you have never faced, it is as hard for you as it is for a camel to pss through the eye of a needle, you cannot buy your way into heaven and you lack the humility to even try.
 

Seekermeister

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

I forgot he was the forum police on how to post.

There is an ettiquette that with forums that goes far beyond AT. If you fail to understand this, perhaps you should learn. It has nothing to do with being a forum policeman. However, I have seen alot of members making comments on issues much less significant than this. The fact that you omitted the label is not a big thing in itself, but your attitude is.
 

Codewiz

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

I forgot he was the forum police on how to post.

There is an ettiquette that with forums that goes far beyond AT. If you fail to understand this, perhaps you should learn. It has nothing to do with being a forum policeman. However, I have seen alot of members making comments on issues much less significant than this. The fact that you omitted the label is not a big thing in itself, but your attitude is.

Let me go find more cheese. Seriously, I am running out.......

BTW, if you haven't noticed, I fixed it a long time ago.....

Didn't want someone to read it think you said something intelligent.....
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: Codewiz
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.


This book is not about science..or believing in science.

Believing in science is not the opposite of belief in god(s), one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The same is true for atheism, it has nothing to do with science.

science tries to explain how the universe works, not why it works that way. It's possible there is no 'why', but science doesn't have any application in deciding that.

btw- by 'universe', i don't mean the heavens, I mean everything, from gravity to human emotion.

 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
Originally posted by: Slackware
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
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.

As i said, with that kind of arrogance in the name of christ, you will be lucky if you CAN ever repent, humility my friend is the only way to meet your saviour, humility is something you cannot express and so you can never be saved. All you have to offer is arrogace.
Let me get this straight. Do you consider yourself a Christian? If so, then where are you demonstrating any humility? If not, then I will repeat...you are not qualified to instruct me on anything of this nature.

Your post demonstrates a lack of either Biblical or Divine understanding. That being the case, you should learn a bit more before trying to correct someone else.

 

Codewiz

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


This book is not about science..or believing in science.

Believing in science is not the opposite of belief in god(s), one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The same is true for atheism, it has nothing to do with science.

science tries to explain how the universe works, not why it works that way. It's possible there is no 'why', but science doesn't have any application in deciding that.

btw- by 'universe', i don't mean the heavens, I mean everything, from gravity to human emotion.

Dawkins addresses this also. You say science doesn't address "why". That is a limit you put on it. You say "why" is the area of religion. Why do you believe that way?

 

CKent

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
9,020
0
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Martin
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...

Ahhh, I see.

So sharing the word of the messiah, eh? What next? Wandering parking lots handing out the bible?

Martin, I'm really not trolling. I'm just merely pointing out what is so painstakingly obvious.

Snidely calling Dawkins "the Messiah" is absolutely trolling. Others with religious beliefs have contributed to the thread without doing so, only you and seek seem unable. It's almost as if your faith is lacking and you feel threatened.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: CKent
Snidely calling Dawkins "the Messiah" is absolutely trolling. Others with religious beliefs have contributed to the thread without doing so, only you and seek seem unable. It's almost as if your faith is lacking and you feel threatened.

I'm an athiest as well.

Maybe I'm the one with the open mind?

-edit-
However I don't allow bible/dawkins thumping to cloud my beliefs. I am therefore "enlightened."
 

CKent

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
9,020
0
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: CKent
Snidely calling Dawkins "the Messiah" is absolutely trolling. Others with religious beliefs have contributed to the thread without doing so, only you and seek seem unable. It's almost as if your faith is lacking and you feel threatened.

I'm an athiest as well.

Maybe I'm the one with the open mind?
I'm an FSMist. Not really, but I could say that. It wouldn't change my posts.
 

Codewiz

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2002
5,758
0
76
My last post to this thread. Almost everything brought up in this thread is addressed in Dawkin's book.

If your faith is strong then there is NO reason not to read the book. By all means, it is just rubbish compared to your faith. Why come in this thread trying to attack his ideas when you are making points that he directly addresses in the book. Read the book then come back with your flames/arguments.
 

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,566
736
136
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
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.

So, my question still is unanswered: a "step beyond" exactly what?

I guess it doesn't really surprise me that others have tried word substitution as a way to suggest to you that you're not as tolerant of other people's opinions as you want to take credit for. If the symmetry is completely lost on you, then I'm sorry.

If you require that those doubting the existence of "god" provide proof, then it seems that those who claim to be "not guessing" should also be expected to offer proof supporting their assertions. On the other hand, if your belief is based on faith rather than reason then you would in fairness have to accept non-belief by others without expecting them to provide reasons.

Unless, of course, your insights somehow better than those of non-believers...


 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Martin
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...

Ahhh, I see.

So sharing the word of the messiah, eh? What next? Wandering parking lots handing out the bible?

Martin, I'm really not trolling. I'm just merely pointing out what is so painstakingly obvious.

No, you really are. There is a little saying I read somewhere "Atheism is a religion the same way bald is a hair colour". You may think you're clever with seemingly witty allusions to religion, but its really quite silly.

What it stems from is (like I mentioned in the OP) that you don't want to treat religion as just another topic. What I described happens very often - we usually exchange books 2-3 times a month. Had this post been about the last two good books we exchanged thusly (Nicholas Wade's Before The Dawn and Ray Kurzweil's Sinugularity is Near), would you have been saying the same things? Accusing me of trying to spread the Word of Wade? Of following the Prophet Kurzweil and his new religion of Singularitarianism?
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Codewiz
My last post to this thread. Almost everything brought up in this thread is addressed in Dawkin's book.

If your faith is strong then there is NO reason not to read the book. By all means, it is just rubbish compared to your faith. Why come in this thread trying to attack his ideas when you are making points that he directly addresses in the book. Read the book then come back with your flames/arguments.

Because you so feverently defend and angrily support your religion.

Oh my science indeed.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Martin
No, you really are. There is a little saying I read somewhere "Atheism is a religion the same way bald is a hair colour". You may think you're clever with seemingly witty allusions to religion, but its really quite silly.

What it stems from is (like I mentioned in the OP) that you don't want to treat religion as just another topic. What I described happens very often - we usually exchange books 2-3 times a month. Had this post been about the last two good books we exchanged thusly (Nicholas Wade's Before The Dawn and Ray Kurzweil's Sinugularity is Near), would you have been saying the same things? Accusing me of trying to spread the Word of Wade? Of following the Prophet Kurzweil and his new religion of Singularitarianism?

Thank you for proving my point.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: Codewiz
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.


This book is not about science..or believing in science.

Believing in science is not the opposite of belief in god(s), one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The same is true for atheism, it has nothing to do with science.

science tries to explain how the universe works, not why it works that way. It's possible there is no 'why', but science doesn't have any application in deciding that.

btw- by 'universe', i don't mean the heavens, I mean everything, from gravity to human emotion.

Dawkins addresses this also. You say science doesn't address "why". That is a limit you put on it. You say "why" is the area of religion. Why do you believe that way?

If you understand what science is, then it's obvious it cannot give us the why of things. I did not say that religion can tell us the answer of why, all it does is the same thing Dawkins does, profess to have some insight into the answer, and each of us is free to accept it or reject it. Each person has their own opinion about the 'why' of things. And we look for our own answer in lots of places other than science or religion; family, friends, work, love, the acts of others.

My personal problem with Dawkins is, I happen to believe in science too, but I think I understand it's limitations, and it annoys me when someone tries to overstate the value of science. The real value of science is amazing, it doesn't need to have that value inflated and twisted, and ultimately diminished.

And, I don't happen to place all that much value on words or deeds that serve no purpose, which is the way I feel about Dawkins and many religions.

My own personal answer to the 'why' question comes more from seeing firemen rushing into burning buildings, my son signing up for the Marines the day after 9/11, the intellect of someone like Martin Luther King or Albert Einstein, the beauty of calculus or my wife's eyes.


edit- btw, I know what Dawkin's "addresses", unless someone is a believer in the rightness of him, "addressing" something isn't the last word on the subject.