[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 101 KB, 400x609, GodDelusion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
738794 No.738794 [Reply] [Original]

Am I the only atheist who thought this book sucked?

>> No.738798

Nope. Greatest show on earth was meh also

>> No.738802

Many did. Dawkins doesn't need to dabble in philosophy if he doesn't know what the fuck he's doing.

Really, The God Delusion is The Selfish Gene + Dawkins masturbating on print.

>> No.738817

What struck me is that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He said that he would discuss about the existence of God with a scientific method but there really wasn't. The only argument he used was that this or that theory 'sounded stupid'.

>> No.738826

No, Richard Dawkins is just a tool.

>> No.738830

If this guy is a university professor, then I can become one easily

>> No.738839

god delusion was awful, nearly incoherent
his other books have been decent though, selfish gene and climbing mount improbable among my favorites in the genre
and full disclosure, i am an atheist, but i can't subscribe to the militancy of dawkins et al

>> No.738852

>>738817

I will not speak for Dawkins, but this might illuminate.

Scientific Method:

Define the question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


Hypothesis: God listens to prayers.
Experiment: The Great Prayer Experiment he outlines in book.
Data: No change in performance of patient.
Conclusion: Prayer doesn't work.

>> No.738854

>>738839

How did you reach your conclusion?

>> No.738856

>>738817

Care to use details? That was a rather wide claim.

>> No.738857

The "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit" is the worst proof for God's non-existence I ever read.

>> No.738864

I think Dawkins jumped the shark when he said he wanted to arrest the Pope and send him to court for 'Crimes against humanity'

This expression has a meaning, don't use it like it's nothing much, thank you in the name of people who actually died from genocide

>> No.738868

>>738857

It illustrates that it is highly improbable that God, fully-facultied, spontaneously combusted into existence.

Where did you find fault with it?

>> No.738870

>>738864


Was he speaking of a specific pope?

>> No.738877

Dawkins often said that 'if X or Y happened, i'm pretty sure that [insert name of a theologist] would say this or that'

This isn't science, this is pure fucking speculation and has no fucking reason to be in your essay

I'm certain that there is no God, but Dawkins reallyy sucks at promoting atheism

>> No.738881

>>738877

Which proofs do you prefer?
How would you address committed theists?

>> No.738882

pope on a rope lol

>> No.738883
File: 106 KB, 640x908, 913941_front.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
738883

This is like reading a Richard Dawkins book, only more entertaining

>> No.738884

>>738870
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece

>> No.738887

>>738868

For the argument to make any sort of sense, you have to accept materialism. God is not a material entity. The argument is invalid since it presupposes the non-existence of God in its premises(begging the question) .

>> No.738906

>>738887

How could a proof for the non-existence of God begin with a presumed existence of God?

>> No.738913

>>738864
>implying the condom aids africa shit isn't serious

>> No.738919

>>738887
This

GOD IS NOT THE CREATION

>> No.738926

>>738913
You didn't even read the article

Dawkins wants to arrest him because of the pedophilia scandals, not because of AIDS

Also, no one owns other people's brains, so you're not responsible if idiots decide to follow your advice, as shitty as it may be

>> No.738927

>>738919
Many theists would disagree with you.

>> No.738928

>>738887
They say God is omnipotent, therefore out of Nature, which means he wouldn't need to be matter or material of any kind? /shrug

>> No.738950

>>738906

A central part of his argument is that God would need to be more complex than his creation.

This only makes sense if we agree that only material entities exist(spiritual entities lack parts--this makes them simple, not complex.). So, why proceed with the argument at all? God's non-existence is assumed from the start. The whole argument is built on materialist assumptions which no theist would agree with.

>> No.738952

>>738927

No they wouldn't.
It's called pantheism, and it is heretical.

>> No.739006
File: 235 KB, 440x410, MlgRLzY1ypwf8jfzCRYfknzXo1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
739006

>> No.739241

Whoops, sorry, /sci/. I thought this was /lit/.