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

← Why there is almost certainly no god

Why there is almost certainly no god - Comments

Beethoven's Avatar Comment 1 by Beethoven

What is the point of commenting on this article when the world is ending today :-).

Sat, 21 May 2011 11:24:47 UTC | #629152

Phen's Avatar Comment 2 by Phen

The Rapture begins today(at 6pm), but I don't think the world ends until October 21st. So, comment away I suppose.

Sat, 21 May 2011 12:34:38 UTC | #629161

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 3 by Stafford Gordon

Oh bugger! I'd forgotten it was the end of the world. I won't be able to listen to the repeat of David Attenborough's "Life Stories" tomorrow.

Sat, 21 May 2011 12:52:25 UTC | #629163

locutus7's Avatar Comment 4 by locutus7

The fact that so many theists attack TGD shows how profoundly they fear its message. TGD stands out in atheist literature because Richard so cogently articulates the ideas that many of us hold. His writing is clear, literate, and persuasive. Unlike christian writing, which is nebulous, abstruse, and content-free.

Sat, 21 May 2011 14:00:29 UTC | #629172

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 5 by Agrajag

Comment 2 by Beethoven

What is the point of commenting on this article when the world is ending today :-).

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in the court of god. You have the right to speak to a priest. If you cannot afford a priest, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?" - St. Miranda

Happy Rapture!
Steve

Sat, 21 May 2011 14:46:15 UTC | #629180

littletrotsky13's Avatar Comment 6 by littletrotsky13

Incidentally these are the adverts google thought it was appropriate to put under the article: Grace Church Nottingham A growing, vibrant church of people changed by God's love www.GraceChurchNottingham.orgIntelligent Design

Course Material on Intelligent Design www.integrativestudies.com

Horoscope for all 2011 Claim your Free Reading from this accurate & talented Astrologer now AboutAstro.com/horoscope

It's always interesting on the rare times that I see anyone discuss the god delusion in real life. People always like to criticise it (maybe it's fashionable) as if it's a philosophy textbook. One thing I heard was "Dawkins brings up something reasonable as a supposition, which is fair enough. But then he sort of assumes that it's true and builds up on it to reach his conclusion which he shouldn't be able to reach" (note that both I and the critic were drunk at the time and it was months ago so this is a little innacurate). When people make arguments like this I always wonder what specific parts of the arguments they disagree with which invalidate the conclusion, and also whether they make their own critiscism or whether they're copying that of someone else.

Sat, 21 May 2011 15:40:51 UTC | #629194

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 7 by rod-the-farmer

I wish these were available in audio format....I could then listen with part of my brain, while the remaining part could do something mundane, like tidying up.

Sat, 21 May 2011 16:23:21 UTC | #629203

Chris Meyer's Avatar Comment 8 by Chris Meyer

Hey all,

Just picked up my copy of TGD and look forward to reading it, especially as a Christian.

Any insight into the book, that I should be sure NOT to miss, I would appreciate it.

Thanks!

Chris

Sat, 21 May 2011 19:05:30 UTC | #629227

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 9 by Agrajag

Comment 9 by Chris Meyer

Any insight into the book, that I should be sure NOT to miss, I would appreciate it.

Pay attention to the Preface. Then enjoy the rest of the book. :-)
Steve

Sat, 21 May 2011 19:45:29 UTC | #629236

Chris Meyer's Avatar Comment 10 by Chris Meyer

Will do!

Thanks!

Sat, 21 May 2011 20:20:30 UTC | #629245

mjwemdee's Avatar Comment 11 by mjwemdee

I speak perhaps rather presumptuously for our atheist community on here, but I think we would all be very interested in your response to The God Delusion, Chris.
I have family members who are evangelical in their Christianity, and I wish they too would have the courage to pick the book up and give it due attention. So anything you might be able to tell us about its impact (or otherwise) on you and your faith would be welcomed. And I trust that we can respond carefully and courteously in return.

Sat, 21 May 2011 21:43:16 UTC | #629264

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 12 by God fearing Atheist

Comment 12 by mjwemdee :

And I trust that we can respond carefully and courteously in return.

We can but hope!

Nice to have you on board Chris Meyer.

Sat, 21 May 2011 22:05:24 UTC | #629273

John Yates's Avatar Comment 13 by John Yates

Eric MacDonald is a wonderful writer, and I can't believe that it's taken me this long to pay attention to him. There are so many other distractions on the internet that it can be difficult to really engage with anything new, so used do you become to the same bloggers and websites. I am particularly interested in his absconding from Evangeical Christianity. Does anyone know if he has written about the experience of losing his faith?

Sat, 21 May 2011 22:20:48 UTC | #629277

reebus's Avatar Comment 14 by reebus

Yeah, it was the babel fish that clinched that question.

Mon, 23 May 2011 01:23:48 UTC | #629695

Chris Meyer's Avatar Comment 15 by Chris Meyer

My first impression so far, as I only in the middle of Chapter 3, is it's more of an attack on religion (mainly Christianity, via the Catholic Church) - to which Richard admits his attention would most be paid to as he is most familiar with it - than setting about "disproving" God.

Fair enough.

But arguments against religion are no real arguments against God. Religion is the institution base upon a diety, but not necessarily the reflection of the diety. Said diety, would be, bigger than the religion of it.

Some of his arguments I agree with - though that's against religion, not God.

I find his opening remark in Ch. 2, very telling - or at least interesting.

This opening statement is quite interesting to me as I find myself asking some questions: 1) how much study as Richard done in regards to the Bible? 2) if no study has been done why does he feel so confident that he can characterize God in such a way? 3) or did he purposely write the characterization as he did to enhance his argument?

This opening remark (as often repeated by other atheists - yet, give Richard no credit for it) displays two things.

1) lack of undertanding and study of the Bible (or) 2) Deliberate misrepresentation.

So far these are my quick, off the cuff, thoughts. [Plug for blog removed by moderator]

Thanks everyone for your kind words!

Chris

Mon, 23 May 2011 12:58:58 UTC | #629839

Chris Meyer's Avatar Comment 16 by Chris Meyer

PL - not sure what your point is.

Everyone else : sorry for the plug, that was removed, as I don't know that I will be able to post everything on here, that I will on there; I will do my best though.

Chris

Mon, 23 May 2011 16:58:22 UTC | #629942

JHJEFFERY's Avatar Comment 17 by JHJEFFERY

Comment 16 by Chris Meyer

This opening remark (as often repeated by other atheists - yet, give Richard no credit for it) displays two things.

1) lack of undertanding and study of the Bible (or) 2) Deliberate misrepresentation

My copy of TGD is on loan. Could you be more specific? I thought Dawkins demonstrated a clear understanding of the Bible throughout TGD.

Comment 17 by Paradise Lost

Just as an aside, I can, on a good day, operate my sextant to approximate my position by repeated star sights. The idea that the wise men could have found a manger by following a star is laughable. They couldn't have found Israel that way, and certainly not Bethlehem.

Mon, 23 May 2011 17:56:12 UTC | #629973

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 18 by Mr DArcy

Welcome to Chris. OK, you haven't yet finished TGD, but to say Richard attacks religion without dealing with God is somewhat of a pin prick. What is religion if it is not the organised worship of a deity? I hereby exclude Scientology and Buddhism from belief in a deity, ( but lots of other weird stuff). Religion exists, but IMO God doesn't. Anyway keep reading and you will find that Richard does most certainly deal with God and his very highly improbable existence. No doubt you will advise us of any flaws overlooked by Hannam.

Mon, 23 May 2011 21:30:54 UTC | #630046

JHJEFFERY's Avatar Comment 19 by JHJEFFERY

Well, Mr DArcy, the strident nature of your last post must have scared him off :). We had a nice, juicy Christian and you ran him off before we could skewer him.

Fri, 27 May 2011 17:14:38 UTC | #631559

Chris Meyer's Avatar Comment 20 by Chris Meyer

Sorry, no I haven't been scared off. What I HAVE been doing is reading the book. I was planning on responding to it at each chapter, but I have discovered that this thread - like many - get lost in the shuffle.

What, instead, I plan to do is post it as a discussion: that is, should it clear the moderator. No reason it shouldn't - outside of it would be critical of much of what Richard has written.

There, as I'm sure will happen, you may reply at your hearts content! But, no, I do not scare so easily.

Peace and Love

Chris

Fri, 27 May 2011 21:01:01 UTC | #631592

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 21 by Alan4discussion

Comment 16 by Chris Meyer

This opening statement is quite interesting to me as I find myself asking some questions: 1) how much study as Richard done in regards to the Bible? 2) if no study has been done why does he feel so confident that he can characterize God in such a way? 3) or did he purposely write the characterization as he did to enhance his argument?

This opening remark displays two things.

1) lack of understanding and study of the Bible (or) 2) Deliberate misrepresentation.

Its funny how assertions like this keep cropping up! Of course comments reflect the critic as much as the criticized, which leaves me wondering how much study of Biblical history you have done? Perhaps a look at the link to this discussion would help to clarify the situation.

Richard Dawkins may be our most renowned atheist, but he loves the King James Bible and urges us to celebrate its 400th anniversary - http://richarddawkins.net/articles/563745-forgive-me-spirit-of-science

What, instead, I plan to do is post it as a discussion: that is, should it clear the moderator. No reason it shouldn't - outside of it would be critical of much of what Richard has written.

I have not known moderators on this site prevent discussions because of a particular viewpoint or criticism.

Sun, 29 May 2011 21:13:34 UTC | #632179

Chris Meyer's Avatar Comment 22 by Chris Meyer

The assertions likely might come up because, well, Dawkins states quite a bit that has either been 1) proven incorrect. (his handling of Luke)

2) quoting someone who is incorrect in their assertions of the Bible.

3) just a broad "generalized" statement that he doesn't follow up with any evidence at all. - as is the opening statement that I alluded to in previous posts.

These are just a few...

Again, I will go into further details with these areas with my posts.

As for my study of the Bible you will be free to judge it when I reply.

A question or two for you.

1) have you truly looked critically to what others, more learned folks, in Biblical history have said about Dawkins' assertions, and what do you think of their responses.

2) how much have you studied the Bible? To what extent? Do you continue to?

Thanks for your reply!

Peace and Love

Chris

Tue, 31 May 2011 23:08:12 UTC | #632828

ZenDruid's Avatar Comment 23 by ZenDruid

1) have you truly looked critically to what others, more learned folks, in Biblical history have said about Dawkins' assertions, and what do you think of their responses.

Good question. What's Bart Ehrman's opinion?

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:33:55 UTC | #632842

JHJEFFERY's Avatar Comment 24 by JHJEFFERY

Comment 24 by Chris Meyer

1) proven incorrect. (his handling of Luke)

Chris

On this site, you will be able to freely voice your opinions and the intellectual pathway that gave rise to them. However, mere assertion gets no points. Please specify. We await the specificity you promise.

PS. Word to wise: many people here know the Bible better than you do.

Good Luck!

JHJ

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 01:28:09 UTC | #632858

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 25 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 24 by Chris Meyer

The assertions likely might come up because, well, Dawkins states quite a bit that has either been 1) proven incorrect. (his handling of Luke)

You mean that anonymous synoptic gospel of the life of Jesus, originating from the oral tradition, written some 40-60 years after the alleged death of JC, by someone unconnected and mostly plagiarised from Mark, over 40%, some from "Q", over 20%, the author of which was pro gentile Greek speaking and politicising accordingly and writing a completely made up nativity narrative for effect, that Luke?

2) quoting someone who is incorrect in their assertions of the Bible.

Who are these incorrect asserters of the bible you allude to and by what assertion are they incorrect? No baseless conjecture please.

3) just a broad "generalized" statement that he doesn't follow up with any evidence at all. - as is the opening statement that I alluded to in previous posts.

You mean this one....

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

For someone purporting to know ones buy bull you make a daft comment. Name a part of that quote you have a problem with and I'll pull some of your scripture to refute ya. Do you really think that a man with the integrity of Richard Dawkins would come off with such a claim and put it into print without finding source in the texts to back it up? Behave yerself, furthermore, there ain't too many theologians that debate him who go there....why is that do ya think?

Again, I will go into further details with these areas with my posts.

Can't wait.

As for my study of the Bible you will be free to judge it when I reply.

Really can't wait.

1) have you truly looked critically to what others, more learned folks, in Biblical history have said about Dawkins' assertions, and what do you think of their responses.

I prefer to do my research using the work of learned folks in CRITICAL biblical history, but if you have any particular favourites you have in mind, I'm certainly up for a peruse.

2) how much have you studied the Bible? To what extent? Do you continue to?

Not nearly enough, but more than most believers and I'm still going, finding out more and more about the lies, deceit and contradiction gives me a thrill.

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 03:05:30 UTC | #632873

Chris Meyer's Avatar Comment 26 by Chris Meyer

It's FEEDING TIME!

LOL.

Just wanted to let you all know that I submitted my post.

Peace and Love

Chris

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:16:22 UTC | #633369

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 27 by Tyler Durden

Comment 28 by Chris Meyer :

It's FEEDING TIME!

Just wanted to let you all know that I submitted my post.

Sharpens claws...

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:22:20 UTC | #633377

Chris Meyer's Avatar Comment 28 by Chris Meyer

Just to reply to this: Do you really think that a man with the integrity of Richard Dawkins would come off with such a claim and put it into print without finding source in the texts to back it up? Behave yerself, furthermore, there ain't too many theologians that debate him who go there....why is that do ya think?"

As to the integrity of Dawkins. I only stated what his response says to me. As for his sources? They too (as I will get to) are lacking. Nor does he offer what someone - even his made up apologist that he uses - might say to refute what Dawkins claims. Remember, Dawkins makes his statement as FACT. No room for discussion, that's it, what Dawkins has said is what the Bible means. I doubt even Dawkins would make that claim (I know I wouldn't!).

For behaving myself, I'm not sure what you are meaning. I haven't said anything mean, just pointing out what someone, anyone MIGHT read into what Dawkins has written. Yes, I"m going to be critical, but I'm not going to be mean.

Why don't other theologian going into his "lack of knowledge" (what I assume you are speaking about) - I wouldn't have any idea why they wouldn't. You'll have to ask them. I am not speaking to his lack of knowledge...I am only dealing with his understanding.

But oneshould also remember: knowledge does NOT always equate to understanding.

He made the statement...i'm only trying to figure out why and how he came to that conclusion...

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:43:21 UTC | #633485

Chris Meyer's Avatar Comment 29 by Chris Meyer

A couple last things.

1) Starting tomorrow evening, I will be on vacation for a bit so if my discussion is posted and I haven't replied - that is why. I will, when I return, reply.

2) No one has yet answered if they have read anything critical (Christian or otherwise) of Dawkins' book and if so what?

If not, why not?

Peace and Love

Chris

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 22:33:33 UTC | #633502

JHJEFFERY's Avatar Comment 30 by JHJEFFERY

Comment 29 by Chris Meyer

2) No one has yet answered if they have read anything critical (Christian or otherwise) of Dawkins' book and if so what?

I think most of us have read some of the arguments. The point is that no matter what your post becomes, it will be nothing we have not heard before. There are no new explanations of the god hypothesis. I am afraid that I foresee your post as scripturally based. This would be starting in the middle of the argument, but post what you want.

Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:56:25 UTC | #635558