I'm not sure if this goes here or Printed Matter but here goes


Anyway. How many of you guys have read it? I just finished it today and thought it was amazing.

How many of you guys have read it?

I haven't. Sorry.

Now, because some authority figure has written it out in a book for you, do you understand "the truth"? Whats really "right" and whats "wrong"? Was it worth the 19.95 to guide you through the ideas you couldn't possibly have comprehended without it?

Or do you read only to weigh and consider, maintaining your own control over what you choose to believe?

I haven't. Sorry.

Now, because some authority figure has written it out in a book for you, do you understand "the truth"? Whats really "right" and whats "wrong"? Was it worth the 19.95 to guide you through the ideas you couldn't possibly have comprehended without it?

Or do you read only to weigh and consider, maintaining your own control over what you choose to believe?

I was an atheist for a few years before I read this book. I bought it to see what his view of religion (or I should say Christianity) was like. and he pointed out some interesting things like the incompatibility of omnipotence and omniscience.

But I maintain my own beliefs no matter what

I haven't. Sorry.

Now, because some authority figure has written it out in a book for you, do you understand "the truth"? Whats really "right" and whats "wrong"? Was it worth the 19.95 to guide you through the ideas you couldn't possibly have comprehended without it?

Or do you read only to weigh and consider, maintaining your own control over what you choose to believe?

Whereas you just pull whatever bullshit you like out of your ass. So much better.

Fucking kill yourself you loser.

But I maintain my own beliefs no matter what

Thats good.

You should go into detail about the incompatibility of omnipotence and omniscience.

Thats good.

You should go into detail about the incompatibility of omnipotence and omniscience.

You should go into great detail about your own beliefs.

Great detail will not take more than a sentence or two for you will it little fella?

Go ahead, say your slogan. Let us hear the fortune cookie wisdom of a twelve year old.

You should go into great detail about your own beliefs.

WTF is with you always bringing up my beliefs?

This thread is about the book, The God Delusion.

I have not read this book. I would like to hear what it has to say on that subject, mentioned by the OP. If the OP were to write a little on that subject, then maybe we could get this thread back on track, hmm?

Richard Dawkins says

"If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent."

Karen Owens wrote:

Can Omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
the omnipotence to
change his future mind?

That's all Dawkins has to say about the incompatibility of omniscience and omnipotence. I couldn't agree with it more

Richard Dawkins says

"If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent."

What about Schrödinger's Rabbits and the many worlds concept?
I mean, if he was all knowing, and all powerful, wouldn't all possibilities exist?

"If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent."

That's all Dawkins has to say about the incompatibility of omniscience and omnipotence.

Ah, I see. I do not think God would be limited by a time line, I believe it would be the other way around.

What about Schrödinger's Rabbits and the many worlds concept?
I mean, if he was all knowing, and all powerful, wouldn't all possibilities exist?

You mean Schroedinger's cat.

anyway, that's being put aside due to the fact that he never really went into quantum mechanics in any segment of the book.

You mean Schroedinger's cat.

anyway, that's being put aside due to the fact that he never really went into quantum mechanics in any segment of the book.
Now that I think about it, maybe it was Schrödinger's Squirrel. ;)

I've never read the "God Delusion", mainstream religion just doesn't interest me.
I was only commenting on that because the omni energy idea is one of the deeper metaphysical truths.
Thats unfortunate that he doesn't go into quantum theory. I guess there is no need to if he's just trying to shoot down fundamentalist fairy tails.
Well... I guess thats all, I'm done here, good luck with your thread.

...or maybe it's because everything from the multiverse to m-theory are interpretational at best and there are very, very few believers to "turn."

Now, because some authority figure has written it out in a book for you, do you understand "the truth"? Whats really "right" and whats "wrong"? Was it worth the 19.95 to guide you through the ideas you couldn't possibly have comprehended without it?

Are you talking about The God Delusion or The Holy Bible?

Ah, I see. I do not think God would be limited by a time line, I believe it would be the other way around.

Isn't it amazing how it's almost impossible to hit a moving target?

Are you talking about The God Delusion or The Holy Bible?

Would that make any difference? The problems I stated are clearly associated with the traits of the reader, not the reading material.


Isn't it amazing how it's almost impossible to hit a moving target?

What do you mean by that? Explain further, please.

This thread is getting bitchy fast. Guys...it takes at least a page of controlled and relaxed conversation to make a good thread concerning theism/atheism. Can we please chill on the open insults?

This thread is getting bitchy fast. Guys...it takes at least a page of controlled and relaxed conversation to make a good thread concerning theism/atheism. Can we please chill on the open insults?

NO YOU FUCKING DOUCHE!

Haha, I'm just fucking around. I like ya TeeDub. :)

It's an interesting read. What it fails to take into consideration, however, is that god exists no matter how much we fail to understand it, or even if we choose not to recognize its existence.

To save those who would waste their time calling me ignorant, asking for physical evidence, etc: I don't care what you think of me, my relationship with god, what you think about god, or how 'right' you are. I will not read your posts, I have most of you on 'ignore', and I could really care less what ideas you have concerning religion, faith, god, etc...I've heard every fucking argument any of you have regurgitated on these boards a million fucking times and refuse to waste more of my time using logic to beat your pathetic little brains in. You call the faithful sheep, yet you so blindly follow skepticism to the point that you have lost touch with reality. Go fuck yourselves and rot in misery.

The only "God Delusion" is the attempt to describe or disprove by means of attribution or negation any image that purports to be a complete and accurate report of the origin of existence.

The Monad/One is the Invisible Spirit.
It is not right to think of it as a God or as like God.
It is more than just God.
Nothing is above it.
Nothing rules it.
Since everything exists within it
It does not exist within anything.
Since it is not dependent on anything
It is eternal.
It is absolutely complete and so needs nothing.
It is utterly perfect
Light.
The One is without boundaries
Nothing exists outside of it to border it
The One cannot be investigated
Nothing exists apart from it to investigate it
The One cannot be measured
Nothing exists external to it to measure it
The Apocryphon of John


The Way that can be experienced is not true;
The world that can be constructed is not true.
The Way manifests all that happens and may happen;
The world represents all that exists and may exist.

To experience without intention is to sense the world;
To experience with intention is to anticipate the world.
These two experiences are indistinguishable;
Their construction differs but their effect is the same.

Beyond the gate of experience flows the Way,
Which is ever greater and more subtle than the world.
TaoDeChing

And, to date, no viable scientific 'theory of everything' either!
Cheers:)

Go fuck yourselves and rot in misery.

Mercy, Hex - is this God's love channeling through you, or are you just having a bad day?

Mercy, Hex - is this God's love channeling through you, or are you just having a bad day?

Neither. 'Tis me attempting to bait Rust into a long winded post about how full of my self and delusional I am. I kind of like reading his posts...it's funny in a 'watch a crippled kid fall over and struggle to stand back up' sort of way.

Neither. 'Tis me attempting to bait Rust into a long winded post about how full of my self and delusional I am.

You can't throw the entire chum bucket in the water before even getting your hook ready. It appears you've already cut him off at the pass, making his post unnecessary. Rust's never been one to restate the obvious ;)

...it's funny in a 'watch a crippled kid fall over and struggle to stand back up' sort of way.

Once again, I have to reiterate:

Mercy!

Have we no sympathy for the crippled kids? Your sense of humor belies the love and kindness J.C. supposedly filled your heart with. Even a godless heathen such as myself can practice the "treat others as you'd like to be treated" golden rule of thumb.

Wtf, I say! WTF!! :p

'Tis me attempting to bait Rust into a long winded post about how full of my self and delusional I am.

This is the mantra of a true troll.

Do you enjoy living under a bridge here on totse, hopping from one troll foot to the next, spewing hypocrisy after hypocrisy in an attempt at getting a little troll food from time to time?

Secondly, Rust's post are nothing as pathetic as you would like to believe or suggest, especially when compared to the likes of you.

Neither. 'Tis me attempting to bait Rust into a long winded post about how full of my self and delusional I am. I kind of like reading his posts...it's funny in a 'watch a crippled kid fall over and struggle to stand back up' sort of way.

Obsess with me much? :eek:

I'm not sure if this goes here or Printed Matter but here goes


Anyway. How many of you guys have read it? I just finished it today and thought it was amazing.
It's a decent book, but fucking boring as hell. If you have the patience to sit around and read it, then it is pretty good.

I was lucky enough to grab the audio book, read by the author. He has a good reading voice/accent, makes it easier to take in.

Dawkins doesn't beat around the bush. He's got a real bone to pick with god, it's quite entertaining.

I found it to be an interesting and easy read and would recommend it to everyone regardless of their religious beliefs.

After all, progress can only occur outside of our comfort zones. No use sheltering ourselves in a bubble of conscious ignorance.

Dawkins doesn't beat around the bush. He's got a real bone to pick with god, it's quite entertaining.

I found it to be an interesting and easy read and would recommend it to everyone regardless of their religious beliefs.

After all, progress can only occur outside of our comfort zones. No use sheltering ourselves in a bubble of conscious ignorance.

Very true, as a normative cristian I'm interested in picking it up. However, I'm not expecting much.

if you enjoyed the god delusion, 'the end of faith' by sam harris is a worthwhile read.

maybe not as well argued as dawkins, but a lot more forceful.
a real condemnation of the potential for evil in islam.

my only criticism would be that he neglects the importance of spirituality in human existence.

anyone else read it?

if you enjoyed the god delusion, 'the end of faith' by sam harris is a worthwhile read.

maybe not as well argued as dawkins, but a lot more forceful.
a real condemnation of the potential for evil in islam.

my only criticism would be that he neglects the importance of spirituality in human existence.

anyone else read it?

I've read it, it was definitely worthwhile. I like how he doesn't cut slack to moderates, but rather shines light on the fact that they are the reason the fanatics are still given the benefit of the doubt when their actions regarding their God goes a bit overboard.

Letter to a Christian Nation was also a superb read of his. Short, concise, and very much to the point.

This book is bashing the doctrine of Mainstream Christianity... That's all its not bashing God... Since everyone thinks God is what a orthodox Christian says is God than you limit yourself to God. Let go of religion and be more into to spirituality. I gaurentee you that religion is just as lifeless as the stones that Yahweh (or "God") wrote the 10 Commandments on.

Spirituality is living and it is that which connects you to what God is, not our misconceptions and assumptions (represented in religious dogma and doctrine). The height of arrogance (scientific or religious) is saying "We know The Infinite and Comprehend it to 100% !"

I will look at the person and laugh... I wouldn't stop laughing until I die from exhaustion from the laughter. (just visualize it... obviously I will stop but the exaggeration is internal)

This book is bashing the doctrine of Mainstream Christianity... That's all its not bashing God...

I haven't read the book (and don't plan to) and even I know that's wrong.

He talks about a personal god. While that is a fundamental aspect of "Mainstream Christianity" it's also a fundamental aspects of most religions, especially the most popular ones (making a book with the goal he had for it and speaking only of the least popular versions of a "god" seems rather silly).

I'm not sure if this goes here or Printed Matter but here goes


Anyway. How many of you guys have read it? I just finished it today and thought it was amazing.

Not read it yet, however, from what I've learned Dawkins attacks are intelligent and justified.

Such an irrational, superstitious deity has no appeal to me and the attack of atheists against this kind of God is welcome. I also do not want to be told that the “true God” can be found either in the inerrancy of the Bible or in the infallibility of a Pope. Both are absurd religious claims designed not to discover truth but to enforce religious authority and conformity.

I believe, therefore, that atheism as a challenge to organized religion has a worthy vocation to fulfill. The real atheists are saying that the God they have encountered inside the life of the church is too small and too compromised to be God for their lives. If the church is dedicated to such an unbelievable, magical and miracle-working deity that it cannot admit to any genuine probing of the divine, then the atheist speaks a powerful truth.

(John Shelby Spong http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/john_shelby_spong/2007/01/i_welcome_the_attention_that_1.html )

This book is bashing the doctrine of Mainstream Christianity... That's all its not bashing God...

Yes he does. There is a whole paragraph (a now famous introduction to his lectures) which states how God is a homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

I'm into the last half of the book at the moment (Chapter 7). I'm really enjoying the second half but found the first to be, in places, a bit of a rant and like trying to swim through mud. He explains many arguments within the first few paragraphs and I felt he repeats what he is saying over and over the rest of a chapter just to pad it out, when I have already understood.

I find the quoting of writers, current and past, very interesting as well as the general 'thesis' layout. I haven't read any of his previous books but would like the chance to get The Selfish Gene when I am finished.

I haven't read the book (and don't plan to) and even I know that's wrong.

He talks about a personal god. While that is a fundamental aspect of "Mainstream Christianity" it's also a fundamental aspects of most religions, especially the most popular ones (making a book with the goal he had for it and speaking only of the least popular versions of a "god" seems rather silly).

Well, Richard Dawkins works are based off of Scientific Materialism, so I feel like he wants to also take away any idea of transcendence in a spiritual sense. I kind of brush this guy off only because, he has inspired so much anti-religious (anti-spiritual?) sentiment. However from a Gnostic POV, God is Supra-Personal aka transcends physical boundaries, entities... Basically unlimited and unconstrained by anything. Not even my explanation is enough to explain it.

Yes he does. There is a whole paragraph (a now famous introduction to his lectures) which states how God is a homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

I'm into the last half of the book at the moment (Chapter 7). I'm really enjoying the second half but found the first to be, in places, a bit of a rant and like trying to swim through mud.

That's not God... That's Christian Dogma and perhaps Jewish Dogma as well. I believe in God. I am A Gnostic Christian. God of the OT and NT are not the same... Everything Richard Dawkins speaks concerning the malevolence of "God" - TO ME - is not God but the Demiurge. So yeah, all he is doing is bashing on mainstream Christian Dogma, not on what God is...

Sounds like Dawkins to me.. Ranting and Raving... Thinking he conquered the realm of religion by way of "reasoning" and "science." The height of human arrogance lies in the most dogmatic scientists and fundamentalists. Which kind of reminds me of two people who cant stand each because, they are so alike.

Well, Richard Dawkins works are based off of Scientific Materialism, so I feel like he wants to also take away any idea of transcendence in a spiritual sense. I kind of brush this guy off only because, he has inspired so much anti-religious (anti-spiritual?) sentiment. However from a Gnostic POV, God is Supra-Personal aka transcends physical boundaries, entities...

So what you're saying is that he doesn't just "bash the doctrine of Mainstream Christianity" as you claimed, but in fact deals with not only many religions, but also the most popular conception of a god in the world?

I'm glad we can both agree you were wrong.

So what you're saying is that he doesn't just "bash the doctrine of Mainstream Christianity" as you claimed, but in fact deals with not only many religions, but also the most popular conception of a god in the world?

I'm glad we can both agree you were wrong.

Half-Wrong

You see the problem is "the most popular conception of a God" is what everyone associates to Mainstream Christian Dogma. So because of that, Richard Dawkins mainly uses the mainstream christian dogma of God as the basis to attack all religion.

I would credit Dawkins for something though:

- Trying to Dismantle basically 2000 Years of Accepted religious dogma. Now those who do not give up on God will be able to go in search for what God really is.

From this his bias towards religion is shown, by using only the most popular ideas of God. Fine by me... the more use of dogma is a work of ignorance anyway. However, we exchange religious dogma for scientific materialist dogma... So what progress was made? Simple, ZERO...

Half-Wrong

You see the problem is "the most popular conception of a God" is what everyone associates to Mainstream Christian Dogma. So because of that, Richard Dawkins mainly uses the mainstream christian dogma of God as the basis to attack all religion.

No, actually it's associated with most popular religions. Islam for example, and its 1b+ adherents, also believes in a personal god with the attributes Dawkins deals with in his book.

So no, not "half-wrong". You just don't want to admit that you were incorrect.

Again: Like it or not, he does in fact deal with many gods and many religions, not just "Mainstream Christianity" as you said. You were wrong.


However, we exchange religious dogma for scientific materialist dogma... So what progress was made? Simple, ZERO... You're changing the subject. I'm not here to argue with you about your ridiculous claims of "scientific materialist dogma". I'm here to point out the incorrect statements you try to pass off as true.