This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← The Godless Delusion

The Godless Delusion - Comments

chemoskar's Avatar Comment 1 by chemoskar

It looks like an unoriginal guide for dummies.. Seems about right

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:09:24 UTC | #489745

shaunfletcher's Avatar Comment 2 by shaunfletcher

review by 'co-author ofHandbook of Christian Apologetics'

Right.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:29:54 UTC | #489749

moniz's Avatar Comment 3 by moniz

groan

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:30:45 UTC | #489750

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 4 by mordacious1

You can read the first 15 pages here. To sum it up: Militant atheists are running around proselytizing ignorant christians in order to bring them into the fold of atheism. Unless you want to live in a society much like the ones under Stalin, Hitler and Mao, you have to arm yourself with the knowledge in this book. Same drivel...different cover art.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:36:34 UTC | #489751

ZIwxBeheld's Avatar Comment 5 by ZIwxBeheld

I have to point out that when I was (an admittedly very wishy-washy and doubting) Christian I challenged myself to test my faith against a reading of The God Delusion, for various and sundry personal reasons. It hammered home what I was already secretly thinking about god, and turned me into the radical atheist I am today.

Nevertheless, had I merely mocked and jeered at the book, I'd still be wandering about in a fog of confusion instead of splashing in the waters of a clear-thinking oasis. Is it too much to ask that we might dare to challenge a book by reading it and then commenting?

After all, thankful as I am to Mr Dawkins, I at least read his book before wholeheartedly embracing it!

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:38:26 UTC | #489753

ZIwxBeheld's Avatar Comment 6 by ZIwxBeheld

Having read the first fifteen pages, I maintain the spirit of the comment above, but reserve it for a more worthy volume. This one even has a pretty leaf frame on the second page, and has clearly been typeset by a monkey.

Updated: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:41:54 UTC | #489755

TrumpetPower!'s Avatar Comment 7 by TrumpetPower!

xwizbt, in this case the very description is more than ample to dismiss the whole thing as purest nonsense:

With remorseless logic, wit, skill, and boundless, joyful enthusiasm it lays waste that stronghold, routs the enemy, occupies the high ground for Christ their king, and dares anyone to retake it.

Anybody who thinks it’s a good thing to occupy the high ground for an ancient zombie hero in a religious snuff porn anthology isn’t deserving of serious consideration.

Cheers,

b&

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:41:25 UTC | #489756

some asshole's Avatar Comment 8 by some asshole

It's astonishing. Believers come about their superstition via faith, which has nothing to do with reason. Then they pretend that they can defend their faith with reason. It just makes no sense to me. All they should do--all that they are entitled to do--is to stand there and say "I have faith". That's it.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:59:00 UTC | #489757

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 9 by Dhamma

xwizbt,

Admittedly, I've read far less religious literature than atheistic. Though, it's mostly for the reason that they very rarely add new arguments for god's existence. The only things that could ever convince me of god's existence is evidence or extremely good arguments, however, these books are rarely about new arguments but things like why a theistic world is better than an atheistic or they give examples of why the world is so amazing it can't have been made without a god. God of the gaps shouldn't work on any reasonable person.

I've read "all" the arguments for god, so I don't need more drivel. Most religious people have not read our arguments, or evidence (like evolution which contradicts e.g. genesis). All the great atheistic/theistic arguments are on the internet, and if anyone comes up with another interesting argument it will be up there immediately. I don't read books from either sides anymore as I find the matter done. I do read what several atheists think about various topics as they tend to be far more rational and interesting.

If they did add groundbreaking arguments it would be on the internet instantly, all over the web, but I think there's a good reason we don't see this despite all the books that "prove god" every year.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 02:26:27 UTC | #489763

prolibertas's Avatar Comment 10 by prolibertas

Comment 4 by mordacious1 :

You can read the first 15 pages here. To sum it up: Militant atheists are running around proselytizing ignorant christians in order to bring them into the fold of atheism. Unless you want to live in a society much like the ones under Stalin, Hitler and Mao, you have to arm yourself with the knowledge in this book. Same drivel...different cover art.

Oh yay, yet another game of 'debunk an argument time and again only to have it thrown back at us as if we hadn't said anything!'

Updated: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 02:41:59 UTC | #489765

some asshole's Avatar Comment 11 by some asshole

I want to clarify and add that these particular people aren't out to simply claim that god exists, but rather that it is a personal god and they they understand his ways and have a relationship with him.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 02:40:47 UTC | #489766

TeraBrat's Avatar Comment 12 by TeraBrat

Quite frankly I think that anyone who claims to know one way or another for sure is equally delusional.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 02:51:22 UTC | #489768

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 13 by Ignorant Amos

The Godless Delusion by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley wages a full-scale frontal assault on the tallest turret of the New Atheists’ stronghold— the claim to moral and rational superiority.

From a book subtitled "A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism"

Interesting to see how they play that one out, then again, hypocrisy doesn't seem to phase the thick skinned whores.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 03:52:06 UTC | #489778

dreamer-71's Avatar Comment 14 by dreamer-71

Comment 12 by TeraBrat :

Quite frankly I think that anyone who claims to know one way or another for sure is equally delusional.

I would disagree. The xtian god is a testable hypothesis, and it has failed miserably. Check your local library or better bookstore for, among other titles, "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger. When xtians make certain claims about the behavior and/or characteristics of their god, sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 06:30:11 UTC | #489794

glenister_m's Avatar Comment 15 by glenister_m

"Comment 8 by

It's astonishing. Believers come about their superstition via faith, which has nothing to do with reason. Then they pretend that they can defend their faith with reason. It just makes no sense to me. All they should do--all that they are entitled to do--is to stand there and say "I have faith". That's it."

You reminded me of a curious episode of 'Star Trek - Deep Space 9", where Commander Sisko, who was believed by the Bajoran people to be the predicted Emissary of the Prophets, willingly tries to hand off the role to a Bajoran man who believes that he is the actual Emissary. A Bajoran and another alien have a conversation along these lines:

"You believe Sisko is the Emissary." "Yes." "You believe ____ is the Emissary." "Yes." "But they can't both be the Emissary." "No." "Then how do you explain?" "I don't. Faith doesn't have to."

Sums the disconnect up well I thought.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 06:58:40 UTC | #489800

Alovrin's Avatar Comment 16 by Alovrin

Poor little Patrick Madrid has, what we in the trade call, "siege mentality". Probably caused by that nasty atheist sneering at him when he was eight, and in the naive beginnings of his delusional love affair.

What's with the stupid little boxes with text in 'em an' flowery borders.
Is this a kid's diary? Come on now!

And that cover...
Soooo that's an atheist sawing off the branch he's sitting on? Oh right!
That's rich coming from a fcukin' catholic.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 07:10:56 UTC | #489802

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 17 by Stafford Gordon

In 2010 a man remembers the tone of voice of a neighbour in 1971 when he was eleven years old; this has the ring of something I can't quite put a name to.

I think he, they, are attempting to echo the opening of TGD. That volume doesn't pretend that the account was true, it simply surmises a scenario. It, is creative writing. This is just making things out to be true.

It's a parable. The beginning of a sermon.

Oh yes, the name of the ring; fantasy. I'm sure he believes it, but believers seem to be able to believe almost anything.

S G

Updated: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 07:51:55 UTC | #489806

alabasterocean's Avatar Comment 18 by alabasterocean

Hmm... look at the branch of the tree (with the guy siting on it) and the trunk of the tree, it's two different kinds of wood. Is it a miracle? Or a man made trick?

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 08:30:00 UTC | #489824

Mrkimbo's Avatar Comment 19 by Mrkimbo

Just want to congratulate TrumpetPower! on his calling the Bible a 'religious snuff porn anthology'. Brilliant. I roared so hard I had to wipe the computer screen - well done, spot on! And almost certainly the best thing to come out of this sad little heap of drivel.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:06:41 UTC | #489826

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 20 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:10:24 UTC | #489828

mmurray's Avatar Comment 21 by mmurray

Comment 20 by gimlibengloin :

Nice. I like this bit:

( CMI of course does not claim that people teach and promote evolution while disbelieving it.)

You might think that with God on your side you wouldn't have to worry about libel suits.

Michael

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:17:32 UTC | #489829

Mrkimbo's Avatar Comment 22 by Mrkimbo

I've just been to Amazon to read bits of it and I like it. It's written in an open accessible style and it demonstrates that if this is the best the Christians can come up with they are completely and totally finished. It reminds me of when I first read C.S. Lewis, whom I had heard was a formidable Christian apologist - my involuntary respect (I had read a biography describing his re-conversion) was soon replaced with incredulity - I could not believe that his reputation rested on such weak, half-baked arguments. No respect was offered by me here, but otherwise a very similar sensation.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:34:04 UTC | #489831

muiskuiken's Avatar Comment 23 by muiskuiken

I am all for those who can put there argument out there...regardless of my personal opinion about the argument as such. So, congrats to the authors of the godless delusion, Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:35:01 UTC | #489832

Demotruk's Avatar Comment 24 by Demotruk

Isn't it funny the way the blurb for apologetics books often deride other apologetics books? "sadly, most of the books written in response have conveyed an impression of ad hoc defensiveness. But not this one." The recent creationist response to TGSoE did the same, deriding other creationist books.

You don't get that from the scientist or atheist writers. Apologetics is clearly in a sad state of affairs if they have to acknowledge how bad they are just to create the pretense that this one might be better.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:41:08 UTC | #489834

jcs's Avatar Comment 25 by jcs

the New Atheists’ stronghold— the claim to moral and rational superiority.

Which New Atheist has claimed moral superiority? I don't know any.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 10:34:23 UTC | #489848

Anaximander's Avatar Comment 26 by Anaximander

Hmm... look at the branch of the tree (with the guy siting on it) and the trunk of the tree, it's two different kinds of wood.

It's all there: The branch does not fit (low fitness) and is too weak. The man has an extended phenotype in his hand. The EP is used in a wrong way: the man will fall down from the tree (as a comment to our history.)

He is clearly a modern man even there; so no evolution has happened since then.

There seems to be no leaves in the tree; I'm not sure what that means.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:07:16 UTC | #489852

Anaximander's Avatar Comment 27 by Anaximander

And, I should add, it's printed on paper, which comes from the tree. And the book tries to implement a kind of seed to our brains.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:21:51 UTC | #489856

Raiko's Avatar Comment 28 by Raiko

I "treated" myself to those first 15 pages and it's the same old drivel all over again.

Here's one of my favorite bits:

Many modern atheists are no longer content to take the "live-and-let-live" approach towards those who believe in God.

Well, duh - there goes another irony-meter. Religion, ESPECIALLY the Catholic Church, has kind of spit, shit, and pissed on the "live-and-let-live" approach for the past hundreds of years - who are they to complain about others finally standing up against that after hundreds of years? Oh yeah, right, forgot whom I'm talking about.

The funny notion goes on a few paragraphs later:

Unfortunately, most Christians have been caught completely off-guard, flatfooted and therefore woefully unprepared to counter this atheist onslaught.

I can see that. Hundreds of years unchallenged reign and suddenly people start to stand up for themselves?! I am certain they were just as surprised in France when the revolution began and in America when black people started to no longer tolerate the treatment they received there. I mean, who'd have expected that when everything was working out so wonderfully for everyone else but these people before? (/sarcasm)

Another favorite bit:

The number of those who would refer to themselves as agnostic (I don't know whether God exists or not) or as atheist (I deny God's existence) is not insubstantial - ...

Because we all know that atheists always claim they deny God's existence - and not, for example, they think him implausible. I am sure in any survey any atheists would immediately check "deny" instead of "unlikely", "don't believe", "doubt" or anything that doesn't imply that we refuse to acknowledge something while knowing better. Deny is a wonderfully misplaced word here to show the authors' mindset.

Eventually, they deny the existence of Scandinavia, apparently, because they set out to "make a case" about how an atheistic society would be brutal, tyrannical, etc. as if secular societies didn't exist already. This is, of course, followed by Mao, Stalin, Hitler ("heavily influenced by atheism"), Pol Pot, yadda yadda, same old fallacies, same old lies. Then they try to insult education by pretending it is given away with an "everyone knows" attitude as opposed to an evidence has shown attitude.

Oh, and apparently their "case" ("beyond reasonable doubt") for how we don't want to live in an atheistic society and how they will show their "compelling and solid" reasons for believing and how atheism is "utterly, irretrievably unreasonable" - is made on 256 tiny pages with a somewhat too big font.

Yeah. Save yourselves the trouble.

Updated: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:44:35 UTC | #489859

Crazycharlie's Avatar Comment 29 by Crazycharlie

" Get it at a favorite Christian book store near you! "

" Please, it's collecting dust! "

" Makes a fine paperweight! "

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:42:54 UTC | #489861

genes4all's Avatar Comment 30 by genes4all

With remorseless logic, wit, skill, and boundless, joyful enthusiasm it lays waste that stronghold, routs the enemy, occupies the high ground for Christ their king, and dares anyone to retake it.

Excuse me but can i just say "What a load of absolute bollocks !"

Thanks,glad to get that off my chest

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:45:44 UTC | #489862