The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[Canuckster1127]

So what you're saying is that it's my privilege to be able to post on this forum? Come on be reasonable. For a group of people who haven't read Dawkins' "The God delusion", you seem to know a lot about it. You can't just read a negative review and then concede that you don't need to read the book because you already know what it's like. The fact that it is bestseller on amazon (nowhere near as purchased as the Bible, I understand), would suggest that it has quite a few followers.

Why can I not have a standard, gentlemanly chat with a Christian? Why do you always seal the subject off and accuse me of "taking issue" or violating terms and conditions. I do my best when talking to Christians to choose my words carefully, and I find every time that your words can be as carefully chosen as possible, but the fact that I am not a Christian is the only thing that matters.

Once, just once, I would like to have a genuine talk with a Christian. The Christian would present their beliefs and explain them. I would be intrigued, and then present my beliefs and explain them. We would talk about the differences and why they are there. We back up our beliefs with what we feel is evidence, and ultimately the chances are that none of us would be converted, neither would any of us try to convert the other. The purpose would be to quench the human thirst for knowledge. I have a thirst for knowledge about religion, Christianity included. But when I try to find out about it, I am not told about actual Christian beliefs, rather I am told why I am on thin ice for daring to show my face in a Christian community when I am non-Christian. It needn't be exclusive. It needn't be a members only club.

So I ask you, do I have to pretend to be a Christian to find out what Christians genuinely believe?

David

pdavid,

There are several non-Christians on this board who have been long-term posters who are able to work within the board purposes and discussion guidelines.

The premise you're basing your complaint upon is wrong in terms of how you are being treated.

The board purpose and board discussion policy is clear and available for you to review and determine if this board is for you or not. It clearly is not for everybody.

Check your inbox as I am sending you a link to a forum in Amazon.com for reviewers that I participate in which goes into this area in great detail.

Regards,

Bart

[Kurieuo]

So I ask you, do I have to pretend to be a Christian to find out what Christians genuinely believe?

No. You just need to visit the right forums. This is not the only board all Christians in the world decide to participate at. There are many other boards across the Web which are likely more suitable to your desires such as Internet Infidels, or one recommended by someone who respected the purpose of this board was http://groups.msn.com/ChristiansandAtheists.

K

[Gman]

So I ask you, do I have to pretend to be a Christian to find out what Christians genuinely believe?

David, you should also understand that it is GREATLY offensive to Christians to call God or the Church evil or deceivers.. It's like drawing a line in the sand then daring someone to step over it.

To the Christian, God is love... To call Him evil is evil in itself.. I would suggest that Dawkins or atheists re-read the Bible before making such claims..

We will be helpful but not when someone already has made their mind up and is not willing to reason or just has an ax to grind...

All the best..

G -

[Fortigurn]

will give you some passages here to show how he supports his claim.

"...in Genesis with the well-loved story of Noah, derived from the Babylonian muth of Uta-Napisthim and known from the older mythologies of several cultures. The legend of the animals going into the ark 2 by 2 is charming, but the moral of the story of Noah is appalling. God took a dim view of humans, so he (with the exception of one family) drowned the lot of them including children and also, for good measure, the rest of the animals as well."

There are a few problems with this:

* He provides no evidence that the Genesis flood story is 'derived from the Babylonian muth of Uta-Napisthim and known from the older mythologies of several cultures' (the flood story of UtaNapisthim is Assyrian, not Babylonian)

* He appears completely unaware of the physical evidence for this local flood, or even that it was a local flood at all (not a global flood)

* He fails to explain why this was morally wrong (he simpy assumes it)

In the same chapter, Dawkins goes on to use various parts of the bible to show a god with the traits you point out above:

"In the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Noah equivalent, chosen to be spared with his family because he was uniquely righteous, was Abraham's nephew Lot. Two male angels were sent to Sodom to warn Lot to leave the city before the brimstone arrived. Lot hospitably welcomed the angels into his house, whereupon all the men of Sodom gathered around and demanded that Lot should hand the angels over so that they could (what else?) sodomize them: 'Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them' (Genesis 19:5). Yes, 'know' has the Authorized Version's usual euphemistic meaning, which is very funny in the context. Lot's gallantry in refusing the demand suggests that God might have been onto something when he singled him out as the only good man in Sodom. But Lot's halo is tarnished by the terms of his refusal: 'I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughteres which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof'(Gensis 19:7-8 ).

Dawkins frequently quotes passages like this in the bible, and shows that for every quote that one can find is support of this all-loving god, there is another which shows a god with those traits you see above.

All of this is to prove his point that we do not get our morals from the bible, neither do we need to get our morals from the bible. If we did, we would all be offering our daughters up for gang rape when requested.

There are problems with this also:

* He quotes (as so many atheists do), from the King James Version of the Bible, which is notoriously poor at rendering the text meaningful to a modern reader, but which results in absurdities and inaccuracies in which atheists delight (which, I suspect, is one of the main reasons why they quote from it)

* The 'offer' of Lot is not a weakwristed attempt to placate the Sodomites with the offer of virgin daughthers, but a saracastic rebuke - firstly his daughters are not virgins (they are married, as the text says), secondly there is absolutely no point in offering young women to men intent on homosexual intercouse, and thirdly when the 'offer' is made the men are not placated, do not accept, grow outraged, and take it as an insult (which, indeed, it was)

[snowmansmartie]

Hi Guys,

I'm new to this forum and was very kindly linked here by the creator of this post, pdavid, who funnily enough is an avid fan, poster and all round devotee, from what I have read of Richard Dawkins.

He posts on this forum to see the reaction, and then boats about it on Richard Dawkins own homepage forum (http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/vie ... php?t=1303).

Nice going going David.

Do not entertain this guy, he is an atheist through and through and RD has made a "religion" out of this. Interesting concept seeing as his book The God Delusion talks about how religion is destroying civilisation. Surely a contradiction in itself. Well done RD I cant wait to read the book and have a good old chuckle to myself at the non-evidence and through away statements that I have read and seen so far.

[August]

Thanks for the tip.

[Gman]

Yes.. Thanks for the tip snowmansmartie... What I don't get here is that someone comes on this forum, shows us from the Dawkin's book that the belief in God is evil or deceiving, then wonders why we get defensive..

I mean, come on!! What do they expect us to do?? Wish them warm fuzzies? It's like walking up to one of your family members and spitting in their face...

All this Dawkins publicity... I bet he is laughing all the way to the bank on this one... Or "if" he gives any of this money away to charities I'm sure we will see the plaques on the wall like how Bill Gates does...

[Byblos]

Thanks for the heads-up snowman. BTW, are you a programmer?

[Silvertusk]

Um.....ah..I was the creater of this post and I asure you I am not an athiest or a fan of Richard Dawkins.....(walks away whistling....)

[snowmansmartie]

Hi Guys,

Byblos, yeah I am a programmer, why? It quite scarey that you know that!!

Silvertusk, I apologise, I was that mad when I found it out, I was just going for it. Oops!! ........ nice whisteling by the way .

It's a funny old world, full of contradictions ..... erm, is that a contradiction to say that!!!

Any way look forward to chatting to you guys.

TTFN

[Byblos]

Hi Guys,

Byblos, yeah I am a programmer, why? It quite scarey that you know that!!

I don't know, you just struck me as a VB/SQL server guy (are you sweating yet? ).

Oh come on! I just googled your user name and came up with some posts you made. Had to check you out too to make sure you're not playing 'good cop' with the same ulterior motives as our buddy Pdavid (since he's responsible for you being here). Sorry about that. Didn't find anything, by the way (well, other than the above).

Incidently, weclome to the board .

[Turgonian]

The word atheism sounds negative; let me call it rationalism. It is a rational view of the world where you stand up proudly, in your humanity, you look life straight in the face, you look the universe straight in the face, you do your level best to understand it, to understand why you exist, what the universe is about, you recognise that when you die that's it, and therefore life is very, very precious and you devote your life to making the world a better place, to leading a good life so when you die you can say to yourself I have led a good life. Now, that seems to me to be a worthwhile goal to put in place of the medieval superstition which is religion. Belief in God doesn't have to be a bad thing, but I think it's a very demeaning thing to the human mind to believe in a falsehood, especially as the truth about the universe is so immensely exciting.

Right. Anything non-material doesn't exist, but excitement does.

By the way, Terry Eagleton's article is very misinformed.

Jesus hung out with whores and social outcasts, was remarkably casual about sex, disapproved of the family (the suburban Dawkins is a trifle queasy about this), urged us to be laid-back about property and possessions, warned his followers that they too would die violently, and insisted that the truth kills and divides as well as liberates. He also cursed self-righteous prigs and deeply alarmed the ruling class.

I wonder where the author gets the idea that Jesus was casual about sex and disapproved of the family. Nonsense. He made clear that He was to be given priority even above the family, but He was not against the family which He Himself instituted.

[snowmansmartie]

Nice going Byblos.......

should have guessed really.

Your ok, no need to apologise I can see where your coming from. I've been a christian for a year now, and I wished I had done it years ago!!

I just wish people like Dawkins and his "followers" would open their eyes do their own research like I have and realise that everything in the world points to Intelligent Design.

I have learned so much in the last year, stuff that cannot be put down to anything else but ID, certainaly not the joke that people call evolution.

[FFC]

Did I hear a can of worms being opened?

[August]

I just wish people like Dawkins and his "followers" would open their eyes do their own research like I have and realise that everything in the world points to Intelligent Design.

I have learned so much in the last year, stuff that cannot be put down to anything else but ID, certainaly not the joke that people call evolution.

What were the main ideas in ID that convinced you?