Full Version: The God Delusion
I said in an earlier post somewhere that I thought I was at best an Agnostic. I just finished reading this book and it has pushed me over the edge into full-fledged Atheism. Anyone else read it?
I said in an earlier post somewhere that I thought I was at best an Agnostic. I just finished reading this book and it has pushed me over the edge into full-fledged Atheism. Anyone else read it?
No, but years ago, even before I knew of Rand, I read George H. Smith's ATHEISM: The Case Against God. That book did it for me. God went on the trash heap and he never recovered. It is the definitive book on the subject.
No, but years ago, even before I knew of Rand, I read George H. Smith's ATHEISM: The Case Against God. That book did it for me. God went on the trash heap and he never recovered. It is the definitive book on the subject.
A lot of times, conversion to atheism is one of the most spiritually liberating experiences a person can ever have.
In my opinion, throwing away the typical God-constructs is very often quite healthy, especially for thinkers.
rde
In my opinion, throwing away the typical God-constructs is very often quite healthy, especially for thinkers.
rde
Yes, it is liberating! It never did make logical, rational sense to me but I wasn't able to clarify or verbalize why, exactly, to myself or others. But Dawkins speaks my language and he looks at the "delusion" from every different angle. He's also debated this with some of the best and most passionate religionists, so he knows all the ways they try to come at you to argue their point of view. I don't intend to get into debates on this with anyone (what's the point?), but if anyone asks me and really does want my reasons/opinion, I am prepared.
QUOTE
...years ago, even before I knew of Rand, I read George H. Smith's ATHEISM: The Case Against God. That book did it for me. God went on the trash heap and he never recovered. It is the definitive book on the subject.
Victor, you're a damned satanic plagiarist! You stole my words!
I was an agnostic until a few years ago. I read stuff from both sides for a paper I was doing for school and finally got off the fence. It is a liberating experience. I've not read Dawkins yet, but he seems pretty good from articles I've seen. I also highly recommend Atheism: The Case Against God.
Kat
Kat,
Na, great minds think alike, that's all.
"God" by John Lennon--from the first album post-Beatle break-up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7zqDjfuloA...rch=John+lennon
Na, great minds think alike, that's all.
"God" by John Lennon--from the first album post-Beatle break-up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7zqDjfuloA...rch=John+lennon
I had already been an atheist for two years in 1982 when I read Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God", but it was an excellent buttress to my relatively new beliefs. I agree with Victor's statement that it's the definitive book on the subject.
I agree with Sujane's statement that atheism is liberating. I found it quite liberating at the age of 20 to realize that there's no one "up there" impassively watching my struggles and ignoring them, not caring or helping. "It's nothing personal", as Nathaniel Branden puts it in a slightly different context about "the universe". Later on in the '80s, after having read all of Rand, including her statement about the primitive who lives in fear that a demon will turn his wife into a snake at any moment (or something like that -- in general, an indictment of the supernatural mindset), I watched the movie version of "The Name of the Rose", starring Sean Connery as a rational, sort of nonbelieving monk, and was almost sick with relief to see from what I had been delivered: to see people huddled and trembling in fear in the belief that demons really existed and could attack them at any moment -- wow.
Judith
I agree with Sujane's statement that atheism is liberating. I found it quite liberating at the age of 20 to realize that there's no one "up there" impassively watching my struggles and ignoring them, not caring or helping. "It's nothing personal", as Nathaniel Branden puts it in a slightly different context about "the universe". Later on in the '80s, after having read all of Rand, including her statement about the primitive who lives in fear that a demon will turn his wife into a snake at any moment (or something like that -- in general, an indictment of the supernatural mindset), I watched the movie version of "The Name of the Rose", starring Sean Connery as a rational, sort of nonbelieving monk, and was almost sick with relief to see from what I had been delivered: to see people huddled and trembling in fear in the belief that demons really existed and could attack them at any moment -- wow.
Judith
LFB Price Only: $15.95
You Save 41%!
Here is the book description from LFB
(If you order the book through the links in this post, OL receives a commission for the sale)
THE GOD DELUSION (H)
by Richard Dawkins
Houghton Mifflin, 2006, hardcover 405 pages
From one of the world's most prominent atheists comes what may be the most comprehensive book on atheism published in the past 20 years. Dawkins addresses a wide range of subjects, including polytheism, prayer experiments, the religion of the Founding Fathers, and more.
Dawkins also takes on some of the more common (and a few not-so-common) arguments for God's existence, presents his reasons for believing that God cannot exist, examines the roots of religion and morality, and takes a look at religion's effect on children. There's a lot of ground covered, but Dawkins keeps things interesting throughout, making what could have been a textbook-style volume into a humorous, enjoyable read.
The God Delusion is a must buy for anyone interested in religion.
QUOTE(from the book)
"Admissions of ignorance and temporary mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore unfortunate, to say the least, that the main strategy of creationist propagandists is the negative one of seeking out gaps in scientific knowledge and claiming to fill them with 'intelligent design' by default.... If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, the creationsit draws a default conclusion: 'Right then, the alternative theory, intelligent design, wins by default.' ...The creationist ploy undermines the scientist's natural—indeed necessary—rejoicing in (temporary) uncertainty. For purely politrical reasons, today's scientist might hesitate before saying: 'Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog's ancestors did evolve their elbow joint... I'll have to go to the University Library and take a look...' There is, then, an unfortunate hook-up between science's methodological need to seek out areas of ignorance in order to target research, and ID's [intelligent design's] need to seek out areas of ignorance in order to claim victory by default. It is precisely the fact that ID has no evidence of its own, but thrives like weeds in gaps left by scientific knowledge, that sits uneasily with science's need to identify and proclaim the very same gaps as a prelude to researching them."
I believe it's NB 101 to know that one doesn't have to be religious in order to be spiritual.
A lot of time gets spent trying to refute the "God" thing. If that makes you heal, go do it!
Outside of that, it's a waste of time. What to do with it? Run around and tell everyone there is no God?
There's a silly human job. I'd rather play chess or something.
A lot of time gets spent trying to refute the "God" thing. If that makes you heal, go do it!
Outside of that, it's a waste of time. What to do with it? Run around and tell everyone there is no God?
There's a silly human job. I'd rather play chess or something.
I am reading "The God Delusion" at this time. It is very good. Even better it seems to be a best seller doing very well with Amazon and on the national best seller lists. I hope it makes more people willing to say they are atheists.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.