FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[scotty]

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion. Highly recommended.

I have heard many opinions about this book and how biased it is. I'm strongly atheist too...

Well, then see for yourself and read it

To be blunt (and honest), i don't give a feck what someone else thinks about religion and have no intention of spending my time reading about it cause it's one of those things... just saying what i have heard.

[darwin dali]

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion. Highly recommended.

I have heard many opinions about this book and how biased it is. I'm strongly atheist too...

Well, then see for yourself and read it

To be blunt (and honest), i don't give a feck what someone else thinks about religion and have no intention of spending my time reading about it cause it's one of those things... just saying what i have heard.

Well, it's not just about religion. Plus it is interesting to read the rational arguments he makes, the biological background, behavioral aspects and so on. For someone who never thought about the why, this could be an eye-opener...

[scotty]

Well, it's not just about religion. Plus it is interesting to read the rational arguments he makes, the biological background, behavioral aspects and so on. For someone who never thought about the why, this could be an eye-opener...

That would be assuming i haven't thought about the why then....? Perhaps i'll grab a copy at some point. I still stand by my point though.

[Amanda]

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion. Highly recommended.

Is his writing as pushing and arrogant as he seems in person? I'm agnostic and quite interested in religious debate but his personality has always put me off reading it.

[darwin dali]

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion. Highly recommended.

Is his writing as pushing and arrogant as he seems in person? I'm agnostic and quite interested in religious debate but his personality has always put me off reading it.

I like his style of writing - he puts a lot of thought into every sentence.

[Amanda]

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion. Highly recommended.

Is his writing as pushing and arrogant as he seems in person? I'm agnostic and quite interested in religious debate but his personality has always put me off reading it.

I like his style of writing - he puts a lot of thought into every sentence.

I might give it a try. We have a huge collection of books on the history of religions in this house thanks to my dads obsession with the subject and despite none of us practicing any religion.

[Juliet P]

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion. Highly recommended.

Is his writing as pushing and arrogant as he seems in person? I'm agnostic and quite interested in religious debate but his personality has always put me off reading it.

Dawkins' book only serves to illustrate that belief in the non-existence of God can be as fervent and irrational as belief in the existence of God. He falls into the classic trap of only paying attention to evidence that backs up his underlying hypothesis, while ignoring anything that may bring his deeply-held beliefs into question.

Which is why those who hold similar initial views to Dawkins when they read the book think that it's great, whereas anyone with a slightly more open mind immediately sees the flaws in his reasoning and the weaknesses in his arguments.

[Gaz]

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion. Highly recommended.

Is his writing as pushing and arrogant as he seems in person? I'm agnostic and quite interested in religious debate but his personality has always put me off reading it.

Yeah he comes across that way, and in some ways he is right religon is a powerful device for persuasion its started wars and still is.

But on a day to day level its pretty harmless and if people want to belive in somthing bigger than them its fine as long as it dosn't harm anyone else.

And he does attack the day to day belivers if you like aswell as the extremeists.

[darwin dali]

He falls into the classic trap of only paying attention to evidence that backs up his underlying hypothesis, while ignoring anything that may bring his deeply-held beliefs into question.

Fortunately there isn't any evidence to ignore

[Juliet P]

He falls into the classic trap of only paying attention to evidence that backs up his underlying hypothesis, while ignoring anything that may bring his deeply-held beliefs into question.

Fortunately there isn't any evidence to ignore

You mean evidence that religious belief can be a force for good in society as well as a force for bad - of course, no evidence at all...

Don't worry, DD, I have no hopes of convincing you to be more open-minded - I know you're a hopeless case...

[darwin dali]

He falls into the classic trap of only paying attention to evidence that backs up his underlying hypothesis, while ignoring anything that may bring his deeply-held beliefs into question.

Fortunately there isn't any evidence to ignore

You mean evidence that religious belief can be a force for good in society as well as a force for bad - of course, no evidence at all...

Don't worry, DD, I have no hopes of convincing you to be more open-minded - I know you're a hopeless case...

i wasn't referring to evidence for what you are implying here. There was nothing like this in your initial statement and one would have to take it at face value as an attack on his overall hypothesis as you call it (for which there is no evidence against).
So, your line of argumentation is quite insincere and ends with a personal insult I don't appreciate.

[Juliet P]

He falls into the classic trap of only paying attention to evidence that backs up his underlying hypothesis, while ignoring anything that may bring his deeply-held beliefs into question.

Fortunately there isn't any evidence to ignore

You mean evidence that religious belief can be a force for good in society as well as a force for bad - of course, no evidence at all...

Don't worry, DD, I have no hopes of convincing you to be more open-minded - I know you're a hopeless case...

i wasn't referring to evidence for what you are implying here. There was nothing like this in your initial statement and one would have to take it at face value as an attack on his overall hypothesis as you call it (for which there is no evidence against).
So, your line of argumentation is quite insincere and ends with a personal insult I don't appreciate.

His underlying hypothesis is that religious belief is fundamentally a dangerous and negative element of human society. While I don't pretend to imply that there is empirical evidence for or against the existence of God (life would be very boring if there were), I would argue that his fundamental bias leads him to ignore the positive effects that religious belief can have. And I think that if his fundamental bias leads him to come to erroneous conclusions in one area, it's not much of a stretch to suppose that his other conclusions may also be influenced by his fundamental bias in a similar way.

The smiley was intended to imply that it wasn't an insult. I merely wished to make reference to the fact that as a card-carrying atheist, I hardly expected you to agree with me!

[darwin dali]

He falls into the classic trap of only paying attention to evidence that backs up his underlying hypothesis, while ignoring anything that may bring his deeply-held beliefs into question.

Fortunately there isn't any evidence to ignore

You mean evidence that religious belief can be a force for good in society as well as a force for bad - of course, no evidence at all...

Don't worry, DD, I have no hopes of convincing you to be more open-minded - I know you're a hopeless case...

i wasn't referring to evidence for what you are implying here. There was nothing like this in your initial statement and one would have to take it at face value as an attack on his overall hypothesis as you call it (for which there is no evidence against).
So, your line of argumentation is quite insincere and ends with a personal insult I don't appreciate.

His underlying hypothesis is that religious belief is fundamentally a dangerous and negative element of human society. While I don't pretend to imply that there is empirical evidence for or against the existence of God (life would be very boring if there were), I would argue that his fundamental bias leads him to ignore the positive effects that religious belief can have. And I think that if his fundamental bias leads him to come to erroneous conclusions in one area, it's not much of a stretch to suppose that his other conclusions may also be influenced by his fundamental bias in a similar way.

The smiley was intended to imply that it wasn't an insult. I merely wished to make reference to the fact that as a card-carrying atheist, I hardly expected you to agree with me!

He actually addresses those so called positive effects. In many cases he turns the table and shows that they are not quite that positive as everybody likes to think of them. For a few he admits they may be beneficial, but with a caveat and adds the true notion that those beneficial effects could and can be achieved w/o superstitious belief.

And I'm actually a very hopeful case

[Juliet P]

He actually addresses those so called positive effects. In many cases he turns the table and shows that they are not quite that positive as everybody likes to think of them. For a few he admits they may be beneficial, but with a caveat and adds the true notion that those beneficial effects could and can be achieved w/o superstitious belief.

And I'm actually a very hopeful case

Hehe, I think you just made my argument for me re: seeing things through a slanted prism of an initial hypothesis. But, let's agree to disagree DD, I'm not sure we'd get very far even if we stuck at this for a while!

Back on topic, once I've finished the mind-numbing Twilight series I'm aiming to move on to 'The Time Traveller's Wife', by Audrey Niffenegger - I've heard mixed reviews - is it any good?

[Amanda]

I've been meaning to read the James Bond collection for a while (I love the movie series) and finally started Casino Royale today