The god Delusion: Richard Dawkins

[niallers]

I'm bout half way through it at the moment and i have to say its a facinating read. Just reaffirms my non belief in a supreme diety and in all probability, nay near certainty, we evolved just as darwinians believe. He uses alot of unnecessarily large words though which is my only gripe as it could put off some less well educated readers. He mentions some scary stuff bout the yanks and the religious movement over there into advocating creationism and it being thought is schools alongside or even instead of evolution. Aynyone read it and what do/did ye think?

Edited March 10, 2011 by niallers

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I don't believe in Richard Dawkins.

[niallers]

Infadel

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

If I did believe in him, I wouldn't like him. He's a cunt. Well, he would be if he were real.

[Fowlers God]

I dont believe in Niallers

[th7]

Should read it in schools.

[Strontium]

I enjoyed it. It's an extremely accessible book that effectively debunks the concept of a personal god.

[Duncan Clench]

Yeah I really enjoyed it. I found the first few chapters a bit daunting but after that I really couldn't put it down... I had super glue all over my hands.

[silverlining]

Richard Dawkins is such a smug, sneering, pompous, unfunny cunt

 

He makes me actually believe in God more, because when I look at something as fundamentally irritating as Professor Richard Dawkins, I don't think that he could have evolved by chance.

 

(apologies to S. Lee for bad paraphrasing and shameless plagiarism)

[Thants]

Richard Dawkins is such a smug, sneering, pompous, unfunny cunt

 

He makes me actually believe in God more, because when I look at something as fundamentally irritating as Professor Richard Dawkins, I don't think that he could have evolved by chance.

 

(apologies to S. Lee for bad paraphrasing and shameless plagiarism)

 

Ha, that was his last tour wasnt it.

 

I'm not a fan of Dawkins as he is annoying but he has helped to forge a good generation of atheists so he's not all that bad.

 

This has nothing to do with Dawkins but it tickles me

Advice God | quickmeme

[Red Lad]

It's a decent read and he gets his point across quite well. I don't like his writing style though, very condescending and sneery.

[TheResonator]

I don't think I could read a book with such an arrogant, dismissive title. Especially as there are a good few Christian authors who've contributed exponentially more to understanding humanity than Dawkins, who only has only helped me to understand why 'aggravated' is a qualifying term that sometimes precedes 'assault'.

 

Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Rene Girard, Kieerkegaard were all either Christians or flirted with Christianity, whilst contributing greatly towards understanding how any why people behave the way they do and why they suffer, without any overt or necessary sycophancy towards a deistic figure, and that's just off the top of my head. What does Dawkins do? ''Oh the God delusion, because you're all simply deluded if you believe in God.'' Fuck off, Dawkins. There are people who have offered infinitesimally more to the world than you who believed in religion, who do you think you are to look down your nose at them?

 

For the record, I'm not religious. I'm not an atheist nor am I agnostic. I think it's a mark of supreme arrogance for human beings to think that if there was a God, it would reveal itself to empirical observation, or that we could ever approach some level of investigation that would uncover it. I have no opinion on the existence or non-existence of God. But I'm not confident that a society full of atheists would be better than one full of religious people. I think, in fact, it might well be worse. We shall probably see over the coming centuries. Nonetheless, the intolerant and snide tone of Dawkins' book has more in common with the worst elements of religious fervour than it does with a humanitarian world; whether such a world eventually found it's epicentre in religion or atheism.

 

Bottom line: Stewart Lee's right, Dawkins is a cunt.

[Anubis]

Richard Dawkins is such a smug, sneering, pompous, unfunny cunt

 

He makes me actually believe in God more, because when I look at something as fundamentally irritating as Professor Richard Dawkins, I don't think that he could have evolved by chance.

 

(apologies to S. Lee for bad paraphrasing and shameless plagiarism)

 

Must... ...resist... ...obvious... ...retort.

 

I think Dawkins is great.

[Special K]

I preferred 'God is Not Great' by Christopher Hitchens. A corking read.

[Fugitive]

I find it amazing that people need to have it confirmed by someones book that God is a myth.

[Ginny]

Dont worry religion wont exist in a couple of hundred years. What he is saying will naturally play out in our evolution as it is doing now in the middle east.

[rondeco]

To me, god is very real. And that is all that matters to me.

[Strontium]

''Oh the God delusion, because you're all simply deluded if you believe in God.''

 

 

delusion (plural delusions)

 

A false belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts.

 

In what way does this not describe belief in a personal God?

 

Nonetheless, the intolerant and snide tone of Dawkins' book has more in common with the worst elements of religious fervour than it does with a humanitarian world

 

 

I thought you said you hadn't read it?

[Fugitive]

I might write a Pamphlet on the subject.

 

Page 1. He's not real.

Page 2. Only a fucking retard would believe in the beardy sky wizard.

Page 3. There is no heaven and hell. We rot and fade away.

Page 4. Stop being insecure cunts and face the fucking truth. All fucking life is pointless.

[stevebaby]

I preferred 'God is Not Great' by Christopher Hitchens. A corking read.

Indeed it is. I don't often agree with Christopher Hitchens,but he's a very good journalist and writer.

Also very funny when he's pissed and being interviewed. A fearsome debater who deffo doesn't suffer fools gladly.

[stevebaby]

I might write a Pamphlet on the subject.

 

Page 1. He's not real.

Page 2. Only a fucking retard would believe in the beardy sky wizard.

Page 3. There is no heaven and hell. We rot and fade away.

Page 4. Stop being insecure cunts and face the fucking truth. All fucking life is pointless.

I'm forced to take issue with your last sentence,although I whole-heartedly agree with the rest of your post.

 

As long as bacon exists,life is not pointless.

[Fugitive]

I'm forced to take issue with your last sentence,although I whole-heartedly agree with the rest of your post.

 

As long as bacon exists,life is not pointless.

 

Try telling that to a Jew. They will take you down with some Kung Jew Ninja shit.

 

All religions are fucking shit and they all deserve to be treated like Witches and burnt.

[TheResonator]

delusion (plural delusions)

 

A false belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts.

 

In what way does this not describe belief in a personal God?

 

 

 

 

I thought you said you hadn't read it?

 

I can't tackle the first point from the point of view of a believer in religion or scripture, but in terms of the theoretical concept of divinity or a supreme, intangible being, the idea that they would be factually discernible is ludicrous. Conducting ones own existence with adherence to the factual is reasonable; apotheosis of the factual - particularly where ontology is concerned - is innately fallible. Ruling out the possibility of a greater force of existence than ourselves because it is indiscernible is naive, in my opinion of course.

 

On the second point, I haven't read it. For what it's worth, I've seen Dawkins in interview and discourse elaborate his views at length, and I found him to be extremely patronising. Moving back to 'The God Delusion', I suppose there are a great many people who believe in a personal God who haven't, either, and who never will. The title of the book alone carries an incendiary and provocative enough tone to denote a great deal of contempt towards anybody who does believe in a personal God. So, I ask myself, do these people merit attacking for their beliefs and ideals? Is it reasonable and humanitarian to show flagrant disrespect to people just because they have chosen to believe in a God or a set of scriptures?

 

Again, it's a personal point of view, but I believe we ought to live and let live. The point at which an individual's religion causes a risk to peace, freedom and essential human rights is the point at which it ought to be curtailed. You only need to look at this very thread to see the hostility that religious belief invokes in so many people nowadays. That, to me, is part of a negative principle. If I had to attempt to summarise my own position, I'd say that tolerance and understanding are the overarching principles by which a society ought to be governed. That means allowing faith to operate side by side with the factual; it can't be right to eradicate either.

 

The connotations of a 'delusion' are obvious, as is the sneering and polemic tone. Whilst you might fit the belief in a personal God in with the Oxford definition of 'delusion', what is inferred beyond that is exactly what I've stipulated above: curtail your beliefs to what is factual or face contempt. I can understand that some people might think that religion ought to be surpassed on the road to becoming a more enlightened culture, but personally I think that it's ridicule is the first step towards totalitarianism.

[Uncle_Meat]

Try telling that to a Jew. They will take you down with some Kung Jew Ninja shit.

 

All religions are fucking shit and they all deserve to be treated like Witches and burnt.

 

 

Even Tarvuism?

 

[YOUTUBE]ZzmhIlW15qw[/YOUTUBE]

[silverlining]

Must... ...resist... ...obvious... ...retort.

 

I think Dawkins is great.

 

You cheeky cunt, I *am* funny