/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1375537]

The God Delusion, anyone read it? Any good.

Torrent link?

[Anonymous No.1375548]

Anti-theism is counter-productive and pretentious. Go and read some of Chesterton's christian apologetics if you want to actually be an informed believer/non-believer rather than jumping on the bandwagon.

[Anonymous No.1375553]

>>1375537
The God Delusion is not particularly well argued to my mind. In addition I fundamentally disagree with a lot of Dawkins' assertions regarding religion. So I would say not worth it... but your opinion may of course vary. Atheist here, just to be clear.

>>1375548
I don't know if that's necessarily the best idea... I love Chesterton, but his apologetics aren't for everyone.

[Anonymous No.1375563]

>>1375553
Nice grammar
Nice Vocab
Nice intelligence
>Oh wait

[Anonymous No.1375566]

>The God Delusion is not particularly well argued to my mind. In addition I fundamentally disagree with a lot of Dawkins' assertions regarding religion. So I would say not worth it... but your opinion may of course vary. Atheist here, just to be clear
>to my mind
>In addition (,)
>a lot
>So (,)
>may (,) of course (,) vary.

I would like direct you to the writing center, good sir. It should be located somewhere around your campus. Try your Student Union Building, or perhaps the commons! We can all learn how to become better writers with just a small amount of hard work and practice. And stuffing your arguments full of grammatical errors makes you look like a fucking idiot. Have a nice day.
>Atheist here, just to be clear

[Anonymous No.1375567]

>>1375537

I've actually read it. It is good. Worth reading.

It is rare to find someone who has an internally consistent logic and philosphy.

I don't like how Dawkins offers Science as a replacement for religion, I think they are two different beasts. I don't think he is incorrect in what he says, but it leads to religous people picking holes in science and asserting that proves religion true. E.g. "Science doesn't know what happened before the big bang, so God exists". Those type of falacies that for some reason are effective in rhetoric.

But, yeah, give it a read.

[Anonymous No.1375570]

>>1375548
Pro-theism is counter-productive and pretentious. Go and read some of Harry Potter Prizoner of Azkaban if you want to actually be an escapist believer/non-believer rather than jumping on the bandwagon.

>fix'd

[Anonymous No.1375571]

I dont like it when people assume Dawkins is the Atheist Pope. Ive been an atheist since i was 8 (because figuring out if religion is bull or not takes a damn lot less thought than people think) and ive no idea what he even looks like, let alone read anything by him.

Im not against him, im not for him, he just doesnt register on my radar at all. I just wish he didnt represent atheist across the world.

[Anonymous No.1375580]

>>1375570
I'm not pro-theist, I'm anti-anti-theist. I've no problem with atheists and might as well be an atheist myself, but anti-theists are real scum.

captcha: epriewi theophile
ha

[Anonymous No.1375583]

>>1375580

Who are you trying to save by picking these fights?

[Anonymous No.1375585]

Utter garbage, read Hume and Mill if you want something constructive.

[Anonymous No.1375587]

>>1375585
I mean, even Schopenhauer trumps The God Delusion:
http://www.schopenhauer-web.org/textos/Religion.pdf

[Anonymous No.1375588]

>>1375585

Just curious, what didn't you like about it? What made it garbage? What did you disagree with?

[Anonymous No.1375590]

>>1375588
His use of science to "disprove God" - I mean, he gives evidence against a concept that doesn't require evidence.

[Anonymous No.1375596]

>>1375590
(And by "gives" I mean "tries to give", as in "during this study their prayers weren't answered, therefore God is unlikely".)

[Anonymous No.1375598]

>>1375583
The same people that anti-theists are trying to save by picking theirs.

[Anonymous No.1375601]

>>1375590

you must have just read >>1375567

[Anonymous No.1375605]

>>1375601
I actually only read OP's comment, but yeah I probably should've read the whole thread.

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1375612]

>>1375587
This is good stuff. Schopenhauer is by far the least abstruse german philosopher.
In fact, this would serve as a great introductory text to anyone studying philosophy of religion.

[Anonymous No.1375668]

>>1375587
>Demopheles. You’ve no notion how stupid most people are.

alrighty
I'm loving this guy already

[Anonymous No.1375721]

The book is one long straw man argument. Dawkins makes a statement about what he thinks religious people believe, then spills a lot of ink explaining the errors of that position - when that position is foreign to actual religious people. His only response to the Ontological Argument is, essentially, 'it is silly' without actually refuting it or (God forbid) discussing the interesting versions of it made in formal modal logic.

[Anonymous No.1375740]

>>1375721
He's a damn biologist who's having thoughts above his station.

[Anonymous No.1375749]

>>1375721
He's a scientist, and he has lead his life and made his livelihood through the use of empirical evidence and knowledge derived from same. He doesn't respect ontology at all, and his point is that he cannot imagine that an idea derived from introspection is as good as one derived from observation. He's not a philosopher. He doesn't feel that he needs to address the ontological argument any more than 'EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE BEATS ONTOLOGY PEACE BITCHES DAWKINS OUT', because he's never considered the value of ontology and introspection.

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1375750]

>>1375740
no thought is above a scientist's station, but he may do a bad job at it. it's at the least better than any apologia ever written.

[Anonymous No.1375757]

>>1375740
>DERP BIOLOGY ISN'T AN ADEQUATE EXPLANATION FOR ALL HUMAN BEHAVIOUR HERP

[Anonymous No.1375758]

>>1375750
He's a biologist who thinks he can talk about physics. Fucking idiot, he's barely in the natural science at all.

[Anonymous No.1375761]

>>1375757
Correct. Which is why it's not a real natural science.

[Anonymous No.1375762]

I despise Dawkins personally.

No doubt he is an accomplished scientist, he knows his way around the research and his rhetoric regarding scientific matters is impressive, but he is a disgrace to the science he propagates and uses the word 'fact' like religious zealots use the word 'god'.

You can't fight ignorance with ignorance, piety with piety, in fact you cannot FIGHT ignorance at all.
His immature, has-t-be-right attitude is on a child's emotional level.

[Anonymous No.1375771]

>>1375762
Dawkins is the obsessed-with-facts-goat, combined with every goat on the bottom level.

Goats.

[Anonymous No.1375773]

>>1375757
It's not

[Anonymous No.1375774]

>>1375771
Pic kind of essential to my post.

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1375778]

>implying biology isn't a science
what is this i dont even

[Anonymous No.1375782]

>>1375778
Who implied that?

[Anonymous No.1375783]

>>1375778
It's maybe a science like psychology is a science. But the only time it approaches a natural science is when it's riding on the coat tails of chemistry.

[Anonymous No.1375798]

>>1375590
actually he's quite clear about that
he says that the proof of burden is upon the asserters as it is impossible to disprove a theory with no proof whatsoever

he doesn't offer science as disproof of god he offers science as a logical alternative life philosophy

i thought it was well constructed, well argued, and very interesting. i do love how instead of simply rejecting religion he offers something more

[Anonymous No.1375804]

>>1375721
the ontological argument IS silly
besides, he said more than that about it. the argument assumes existence a perfection and somehow implies a bridge from thought to existence. if i remember correctly i believe he included a counter argument that used the same logic to prove god does not exist.

armchair logic no evidence half baked "proofs" of an unprovable being don't deserve much attention.

[Anonymous No.1375937]

>>1375798

Dear god, someone who actually read the book!

I agree with you in all except him offering an alternate explanation. I think that this is a separate debate (that science is better) than the main one (religion is unjustifiable). By mixing the two arguments, he lets people let a valid critism of science be a justification of religion.

but, yes, well reasoned and thought out book.

And to:
>>1375758
>>1375740

Biology is a valid and influential science. Dawkins uses it in his book, which you would have known had you read it, to base his claims.

And I don't really understand the people in this thread that rate sophistry above evidence. Post-modernism is dead time to buy a new textbook.

[Anonymous No.1375943]

>>1375937
>implying Dawkins doesn't talk about theoretical physics in talks, lectures, etc. as if he has any ability to

[Anonymous No.1375945]

>>1375943
>implies green font is valid form of argument

[Anonymous No.1375947]

>>1375945
>implying it's not just you're too chicken to join this dialectic, because you don't care about truth, only about being right.

[Anonymous No.1375948]

>>1375947

And...decending to sophistry, right on queue.

[Anonymous No.1375950]

>>1375948
>dialectic
>sophistry
lolwut?

[Anonymous No.1375956]

>>1375948
>>1375947
>>1375945
>>1375943

samefag

[Anonymous No.1375957]

>>1375749
its a damn shame about mathematics, the a priori science, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.1375959]

Einstein was agnostic. He didn't believe in a personal God, but he felt there was some "mysticism" behind the perfect laws of everything. Newton also felt that the laws of science were laws of God.

Who is Dawkins? What scientific achievements as he made? He simply wrote a book that is mastubatory theist-bashing for atheists. Yes, certain beliefs in God can be harmful (i.e. "God will save this vehicle from running out of fuel"), but that is not the view of God that everyone holds. And even the Bible never says that anyone should rely on God to protect them in mundane situations like that. Who does Dawkins really hate? He hates ignorant people, not theists. If only he realize how ignorant he was, maybe he would commit suicide and stop spreading his trash amongst the minds of potentially smart people.

[Anonymous No.1375960]

>>1375937
>>1375943
>>1375945
>>1375947
>>1375948
>>1375950
>>1375956
>>1375959
Samefag

[Anonymous No.1375965]

>>1375537

Yeah, read it.
You'd be ahead of almost everyone else in this thread.

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1375967]

>>1375959
>Who is Dawkins? What scientific achievements as he made?

I will hereby ignore the rest of your post until you provide me adequate proof of scientific achievements you have made.

[Anonymous No.1375968]

The book was written under the assumption that there is a problem with all forms of theism, and there isn't. He attacks specific forms of theism which are not true to theism as a whole.

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1375969]

>>1375967
Oh, and they have to be as exemplary as those made by Einstein and Newton too.

[Anonymous No.1375970]

>>1375967

Oh snap

[Anonymous No.1375971]

>>1375804
There is an old saying about the ontological argument that although many claim that it is wrong no one has as yet explained how it is wrong. All Dawkins did in his discussion of the argument is prove that he doesn't understand it. As Anselm intended, and Plantinga demonstrated formally, the ontological argument is an argument that belief in God is no less rational than disbelief.

[Anonymous No.1375978]

>>1375967
I wasn't comparing him to myself, I was comparing him to real scientists (Einstein, Newton).

More important than scientific achievements, I have a mind that is not a slave to any belief system. Dawkins is a slave to the scientific community. The practice of science is great in itself, but the scientific community is just as dogmatic and ignorant as the Christian community.

Another thing that made Newton and Einstein such geniuses was that they challenged previous notions of science (or "natural philosophy' in Newton's case). Einstein left behind the EPR paradox before his death, which as yet to be effectively explained. While everyone else was jumping on the quantum physics bandwagon, the great Einstein was skeptical.

Dawkins seems to spoonfeed himself with every single mainstream scientific belief without any question. He is no different than a Fundamental Christian in terms of ignorance. He lacks the most important quality of a true scientist: skepticism. Yes, of course he is quite the skeptic towards religion, but too much so than necessary and he has forgotten the most important subject to be skeptic about as a scientist--science.

[Anonymous No.1375984]

>>1375740
As a guy with a degree in Theology (Catholic systematic) and Philosophy I have all sorts of people tell me 'you aren't qualified to speak about science; you don't have the education'. yet I will have a guy with a degree in French Lit or Cell Bio spout of about philosophy and when I tell him (based upon a decade of education, research, and independent peer-reviewed writing on a topic I love) 'well, *I* read a book once b[insert title by another a non-philosopher] so I know what I am talking about!'

Dawkins knows less about religion, religious theory, and how religious people think than your average Catholic high school senior, and it shines through in his book.

[Anonymous No.1375985]

>>1375978
>the scientific community is just as dogmatic and ignorant as the Christian community

yeah, you can stop posting now. We've all stopped listening.

[Anonymous No.1375986]

>>1375978
> I have a mind that is not a slave to any belief system
>Einstein left behind the EPR paradox before his death, which as yet to be effectively explained.
Idiot.

[Anonymous No.1375987]

>>1375984
This is it isn't it? When you have a hierarchy of subjects (because of course natural sciences are the dogs bollocks of the world) it spreads ignorance and misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.1375992]

>>1375985
Good. Then remain in ignorance forever.

A real scientist should spend his life testing theories present and trying to prove--or more importantly, disprove current theories of science and replace them with a more valid theory...or even better, a provable scientific law.

Clinging to current theories without trying to prove or disprove them yourself is true and complete ignorance. You cannot call yourself a science unless you try to stabilize or replace current theories.

That is what made Einstein and Newton geniuses. They didn't mindlessly believe in the ideas enforced by their scientific community---instead, they criticized them and used genuine science to disprove bad theories and replace them with their perfect work.

The reason such terrible theories were supported before Einstein and Newton's time was that the people mindlessly believed findings of scientific experiments without reproducing these experiments themselves.

That is what it means to be a scientist. You must test every experiment the scientific community holds close to their hearts yourself. The reason there are faulty theories is because people not suited to be scientists use the experimental medium as a means to become famous and make money. That is why there are such faulty theories waiting to be disproved by the next Einstein.

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1375994]

THREAD HI-JACK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2TicMbH4OY&feature=related

WOLOLOLOL
PHILOSOPHY, FUCK YEAH

[Anonymous No.1375997]

>>1375992
>You cannot call yourself a science

[Anonymous No.1375998]

>>1375566
You've made corrections that are wrong bro.

[Anonymous No.1376000]

>>1375987
Not at all; after all, there are several ways to avoid this. Dawkins could have simply spent a year doing research before he wrote the book - the man is obviously intelligent and is said to be a book lover. Or he could have looked for a collaborator - there are many excellent religious scholars who are atheists or agnostics and even many theologians would have worked with him collaboratively. And the natural sciences are far from 'dogs bollocks' (my undergrad minor was in physics).

[Anonymous No.1376001]

>>1375986
Quantum Physics has not made many real achievements beyond the grounds of theory except for predicting electron positions, and that was all thanks to the good man Schrodinger--who also hated the "quantum physics" label given to his work and was also a great believer in a God.

"In the presentation of a scientific problem, the other player is the good Lord. He has not only set the problem but also has devised the rules of the game--but they are not completely known, half of them are left for you to discover or deduce.

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

I shall quite briefly mention here the notorious atheism of science. The theists reproach it for this again and again. Unjustly. A personal God cannot be encountered in a world picture that becomes accessible only at the price that everything personal is excluded from it. We know that whenever God is experienced, it is an experience exactly as real as a direct sense impression, as real as one's own personality. As such He must be missing from the space-time picture. "I do not meet with God in space and time", so says the honest scientific thinker, and for that reason he is reproached by those in whose catechism it is nevertheless stated: "God is a Spirit."

Whence came I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer for it" -Schrodinger

[Anonymous No.1376004]

>>1375997
Sorry, was typing that rather fast. Still, ad hominem argument via grammar error is no reason to disprove someone's argument. I obviously meant to type scientist, and if you actually had a brain you would be able to realize that and overlook this minute error.

[Anonymous No.1376011]

>>1376000
>Dawkins could have simply spent a year doing research
>a year
No

>>1376001
>Quantum Physics has not made many real achievements beyond the grounds of theory except for predicting electron positions, and that was all thanks to the good man Schrodinger
Wrong

>>1376004
Don't get hung up on someone pointing out a misspelling.

[Anonymous No.1376014]

>>1375548
Chesterton rules

[Anonymous No.1376016]

>>1376011
Oh really? Tell me what advents in science and technology we now have thanks to quantum physics. Because there isn't. Quantum mechanics is missing a fundamental piece of information--a solution to the measurement problem. Until a solution is found, quantum mechanics is actually a criticism of classical physics and denotes it all as being completely inaccurate and pointless. You obviously know nothing about quantum physics besides the little you've looked up on wikipedia before this thread (or maybe for your first time trying to respond to my post)

[Anonymous No.1376026]

>>1376016
You have fundamentally misunderstood the EPR problem and the Bell Inequality. And if by advent you mean advances, your CPU in your computer that you're using right now.

You're nearly a century behind the science, you shouldn't try and comment upon it until you catch up.

[Anonymous No.1376032]

>>1376016
lasers

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1376225]

>apriori introspection
>ontological "argument"
>implying one needs more than a competent grasp of physics to talk about a basic issue like creation cosmology

no

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1376234]

>>1375971
>belief is no less rational than disbelief
only if you are some sort of retarded anti-empiricist like plantinga

[Anonymous No.1376650]

>>1376234
said by someone who doesn't know the definition of "logic"

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1376968]

>>1376650
what are you, some kind of retarded platonist