Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion".

Hi there guys,

Id like to get the opinions from those that have read the god delusion by Richard Dawkins, what were your thoughts on it?, do you agree or disagree with his research and the topics that are discussed in the book.

I've just started reading it, and I must say Im quiet impressed with his argument, he has very strong arguments, and is excellent at backing up his opinions, and documenting the blatant truth of what religions do and the extreme consequences that it has on societies and populations.

Richard isn't afraid to state the realistic facts of the matter, though I do not agree on his complete dismissal of any sort of spiritual realty beyond this one, it is other wise a fascinating read.

All comments welcome!


Adi

Hey mate,

I really liked this book.

I agree, he´s got very good arguments and he´s a very good writer.

Of course, I wouldn´t recommend this book for a religious person but, as an agnostic, I really liked it.

Another great book from the same author is The Blind Watchmaker

Cheers,

Raf.

I think Richard Dawkins needs to drink.some ayahuasca

I once use to believe that we evolved from monkeys but now I understand some people are evolving into monkeys http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l2...ons/monkey.gif

The problem with Richard Dawkins is he filters what his audience sees, when you really consider the grand picture, you can easily see there is a intelligent design.

what My humble opinion is - do you really need books to form your viewpoint of life. Can't you sit quite for a while...observe whats going on and how you feel.
Not only that... but what your instinct tells u... whether you believe in religion or pope or God ...or do you rise above and see the big picture of the one Creator and we as being His children.
Books can help you but certainly not make your opinion about who you are.

Love and Peace.

I pray that Richard Dawkins does not die a sad, lonely and disillusioned man. I encourage anyone who has read The God Delusion to now read Rupert Sheldrake's The Science Delusion. Sheldrake rightly exposes Dawkins as being a worse dogmatist than the religious nuts he has a go at. http://amzn.com/B006L9G9I6

Aaaaah, Dawkins

The perfect divide and conquer Christmas gift :biggrin1:


I am a non-religious-Dawkins-crank, preferring God is not Great by Hitchins or The end of Faith by Sam Harris

or even Religion and Science live happily ever after by Mills and Boon



@ Gareth - Thanks for the Shaldrake tip. Looking forward to it.

Quote:

---

Posted by Shamz

what My humble opinion is - do you really need books to form your viewpoint of life. Can't you sit quite for a while...observe whats going on and how you feel.
Not only that... but what your instinct tells u... whether you believe in religion or pope or God ...or do you rise above and see the big picture of the one Creator and we as being His children.
Books can help you but certainly not make your opinion about who you are.

Love and Peace.

---

I guess you don't like to read so, lol.

Adi

Quote:

---

Posted by Vitalux

I think Richard Dawkins needs to drink.some ayahuasca

I once use to believe that we evolved from monkeys but now I understand some people are evolving into monkeys http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l2...ons/monkey.gif

The problem with Richard Dawkins is he filters what his audience sees, when you really consider the grand picture, you can easily see there is a intelligent design.

---

Think it's actually more amusing than that. As we re-invent ourselves as-we-go, we also have to re-invent the past to keep pace. :lol:

love

K

I first read Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' a few years ago, after having seen the impressive and probably expensive display in W.H. Smth's in Paris – it was a bigger display than that deployed for most high-selling trash novels. Hard sell. I bought the book because I'm interested in ideas and because I'd seen videos of Dawkins teaching evolution to students of a university in London – this would have been the early '90's. He came across as an engaging speaker with a gift for communication, which made his exposé more entertaining and readily accessible. However, I remember being confused by the sudden swerve he made in one of these classes – he asked his audience to predict the toss of a coin – heads or tails – unsurprisingly, the result was about 50/50. His conclusion was that it was impossible to predict anything, and therefore any other process than scientific logic was untenable. At the time I couldn't understand what place he thought that opinion had in a class on evolutionary biology.

His book, as I read it, is a diatribe against organised religion, the inconsistencies in orthodox dogma, and the possibility of there being any other reality than what we term 3D reality. People who express any other view than his are deluded, stupid and probably dangerous. To shore up this idea, he points to the more obvious examples of religious fundamentalism – the Inquisition, anti-Jewish pogroms, Muslim extremism and so on. The fact that millions of people are hoodwinked by various forms of religious faith, he states, is an indication of the dangerous nature of any idea that ventures beyond the boundaries of 'scientific' thought.

However, he entirely overlooks the fact that exactly the same arguments can be used to disqualify the validity of any political system. People who are convinced that they are citizens of the 'free (Western) world' have few problems with the idea of annihilating millions of other human beings in order to 'protect' or promote 'democracy' and 'freedom'.

I participated for a while on Dawkins' forum – a self-styled 'free-thinking oasis' (since dismantled, the last time I looked) – and encountered nothing more than a form of ideological conformism quite as Cyclopian as those disseminated by the worst religious fanatics. These are people who raise nit-picking to the level of an art form, endlessly arguing about definitions and worst of all, sneering viciously at those they consider inferior by virtue of their disagreement with the party line.

As a side note to this, I would add that there are regrettably many example of this kind of 'superiority complex' displayed even on sites such as Avalon – overbearing references to the 'sheeple', for example, which in the end serve as little more than advertisements for the author's supposed enlightenment and membership of some sort of special club. It's my opinion that this sort of thinking is entirely counter-productive. Although it is understandable that after long research into the pros and cons of certain fundamental world events, one may feel frustration when faced with people to whom these ideas are clearly inconceivable, it's enough to look at one's own evolution to at least empathize with what appears to be their ignorance. We all have different paths, and they're all valid. No good will come of demonstrating the sort of elitist attitude that isolates others, rather than making the effort to find a common language which at least leave the options for discussion open. The Dawkins' adepts I've met seem to be incapable of such emapthy. Such a mentality seems inefficient, but that's just my opinion.

Over the last few years, there has been a recrudescence of Dawkins bandwagoneering visible in many facets of the entertainment business – especially with comedians, actors, TV personalities and the like. An example of this could be British entertainer Stephen Fry's toss-off hatchet job on the crop circle phenomenon, as broadcast in his show QI – in other respects a very funny and original show by the way – he hired a team of crop circle architects to fabricate a circle of the QI logo, then went on to conclude that all crop circles were fake and people who thought otherwise were deluded idiots. Of course, he entirely overlooked the fact that certain crop circles are so elaborate, huge and perfectly executed that it is almost impossible to imagine that they were created in the dark of night by a bunch of jokers stamping on planks. The truth is we have no satisfactory explanation for the crop circle phenomenon, and any truthful commentary on it would have to admit it.

It's this sort of peer pressure opinioneering that serves to hold the door shut on any line of enquiry different from the party line, an unthinking acceptance that there is no other reality than 3D – it seems to me that Dawkins' well-sponsored celebrity serves the same purpose. Nothing is real other than what can be demonstrated by the five senses. This is clearly nonsense, since even science itself now openly admits that many natural phenomena entirely escape our five-sense understanding or even perception. Perhaps the man himself actually genuinely holds these opinions, in which he's not a very efficient scientist, or else, like Madonna or Eminem, he's spotted the fact that once you get your hooks into an audience, you can keep reeling them in for years.

Finally, a quote from the man himself.

« It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang). »

This is an example of exactly the sort of cherry-picking that Dawkins rails against in his long and narcissistic harangues against religious hypocrisy. The event he refers to was reported in some detail by Jung himself in his book 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections' – he and Freud were arguing about the existence of the 'supernatural' – suddenly there was a loud noise from the bookshelf, and in their moment of astonishment, and to his own surprise, Jung declared that there would be another noise. Jung himself states that he doesn't know why he said that, but his declaration was immediately followed by a second noise. He and Freud then entirely dismantled the bookshelf in an attempt to discover the origin of these phenomena – without success. I don't know whether Freud himself reported this incident, but if not, why not ?

Apologies for the length of this post, and best wishes to all.

Fructedor

Quote:

---

Posted by Adi

Quote:

---

Posted by Shamz

what My humble opinion is - do you really need books to form your viewpoint of life. Can't you sit quite for a while...observe whats going on and how you feel.
Not only that... but what your instinct tells u... whether you believe in religion or pope or God ...or do you rise above and see the big picture of the one Creator and we as being His children.
Books can help you but certainly not make your opinion about who you are.

Love and Peace.

---

I guess you don't like to read so, lol.

Adi

---

Whatever gives you peace of mind my friend

Hey folks,

I really don´t know how some of you guys can think so black and white.

Reading books is not the same thing as assuming a rigid posture regarding a certain subject.

For instance, anyone can read Dawkin´s The God Delusion and read Fred Hoyle´s The Inteligent Universe, which are completely opposing books, and enjoy reading them both.

It´s really important to read and analyze powerful arguments from different points of view if you´re trying to perceive the big picture. It´s crucial, in fact.

How comfortable it is to read books that only enforces and agrees with your belief system? Getting out of your psychological comfort zone is extremely important to stimulate out-of-the-box thinking.

Personally, I´ve read many books defending atheism, many others defending intelligent creation and I still can´t form a concrete opinion about the subject...I just don´t know; what´s wrong with it?

Cheers,

Raf.

Quote:

---

Posted by Fructedor

I first read Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' a few years ago, after having seen the impressive and probably expensive display in W.H. Smth's in Paris – it was a bigger display than that deployed for most high-selling trash novels. Hard sell. I bought the book because I'm interested in ideas and because I'd seen videos of Dawkins teaching evolution to students of a university in London – this would have been the early '90's. He came across as an engaging speaker with a gift for communication, which made his exposé more entertaining and readily accessible. However, I remember being confused by the sudden swerve he made in one of these classes – he asked his audience to predict the toss of a coin – heads or tails – unsurprisingly, the result was about 50/50. His conclusion was that it was impossible to predict anything, and therefore any other process than scientific logic was untenable. At the time I couldn't understand what place he thought that opinion had in a class on evolutionary biology.

His book, as I read it, is a diatribe against organised religion, the inconsistencies in orthodox dogma, and the possibility of there being any other reality than what we term 3D reality. People who express any other view than his are deluded, stupid and probably dangerous. To shore up this idea, he points to the more obvious examples of religious fundamentalism – the Inquisition, anti-Jewish pogroms, Muslim extremism and so on. The fact that millions of people are hoodwinked by various forms of religious faith, he states, is an indication of the dangerous nature of any idea that ventures beyond the boundaries of 'scientific' thought.

However, he entirely overlooks the fact that exactly the same arguments can be used to disqualify the validity of any political system. People who are convinced that they are citizens of the 'free (Western) world' have few problems with the idea of annihilating millions of other human beings in order to 'protect' or promote 'democracy' and 'freedom'.

I participated for a while on Dawkins' forum – a self-styled 'free-thinking oasis' (since dismantled, the last time I looked) – and encountered nothing more than a form of ideological conformism quite as Cyclopian as those disseminated by the worst religious fanatics. These are people who raise nit-picking to the level of an art form, endlessly arguing about definitions and worst of all, sneering viciously at those they consider inferior by virtue of their disagreement with the party line.

As a side note to this, I would add that there are regrettably many example of this kind of 'superiority complex' displayed even on sites such as Avalon – overbearing references to the 'sheeple', for example, which in the end serve as little more than advertisements for the author's supposed enlightenment and membership of some sort of special club. It's my opinion that this sort of thinking is entirely counter-productive. Although it is understandable that after long research into the pros and cons of certain fundamental world events, one may feel frustration when faced with people to whom these ideas are clearly inconceivable, it's enough to look at one's own evolution to at least empathize with what appears to be their ignorance. We all have different paths, and they're all valid. No good will come of demonstrating the sort of elitist attitude that isolates others, rather than making the effort to find a common language which at least leave the options for discussion open. The Dawkins' adepts I've met seem to be incapable of such emapthy. Such a mentality seems inefficient, but that's just my opinion.

Over the last few years, there has been a recrudescence of Dawkins bandwagoneering visible in many facets of the entertainment business – especially with comedians, actors, TV personalities and the like. An example of this could be British entertainer Stephen Fry's toss-off hatchet job on the crop circle phenomenon, as broadcast in his show QI – in other respects a very funny and original show by the way – he hired a team of crop circle architects to fabricate a circle of the QI logo, then went on to conclude that all crop circles were fake and people who thought otherwise were deluded idiots. Of course, he entirely overlooked the fact that certain crop circles are so elaborate, huge and perfectly executed that it is almost impossible to imagine that they were created in the dark of night by a bunch of jokers stamping on planks. The truth is we have no satisfactory explanation for the crop circle phenomenon, and any truthful commentary on it would have to admit it.

It's this sort of peer pressure opinioneering that serves to hold the door shut on any line of enquiry different from the party line, an unthinking acceptance that there is no other reality than 3D – it seems to me that Dawkins' well-sponsored celebrity serves the same purpose. Nothing is real other than what can be demonstrated by the five senses. This is clearly nonsense, since even science itself now openly admits that many natural phenomena entirely escape our five-sense understanding or even perception. Perhaps the man himself actually genuinely holds these opinions, in which he's not a very efficient scientist, or else, like Madonna or Eminem, he's spotted the fact that once you get your hooks into an audience, you can keep reeling them in for years.

Finally, a quote from the man himself.

« It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang). »

This is an example of exactly the sort of cherry-picking that Dawkins rails against in his long and narcissistic harangues against religious hypocrisy. The event he refers to was reported in some detail by Jung himself in his book 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections' – he and Freud were arguing about the existence of the 'supernatural' – suddenly there was a loud noise from the bookshelf, and in their moment of astonishment, and to his own surprise, Jung declared that there would be another noise. Jung himself states that he doesn't know why he said that, but his declaration was immediately followed by a second noise. He and Freud then entirely dismantled the bookshelf in an attempt to discover the origin of these phenomena – without success. I don't know whether Freud himself reported this incident, but if not, why not ?

Apologies for the length of this post, and best wishes to all.

Fructedor

---

This was an absolutely brilliant write up!
You have a gift of great ability to convey your thoughts to others in your writings.

Most interesting read.:tea:

Raised in a nominally Christian but, in practice, non-religious family — obligatory school assemblies and 'hatches, matches and dispatches' in church my only exposure to religious belief and ritual — thankfully I reached adulthood free of involuntary, hand-me-down religious indoctrination. I could go on to make my own, uncontaminated mind up about the incorporeal realm. I was then pretty much agnostic.

In my 30s and 40s I became very interested in exploring all things psychological and metaphysical. I read books or listened to tapes by the likes of Edgar Cayce, M Scott Peck, Wayne Dyer, Eric Berne, and many others. I visited psychics... enjoyed a personal relationship with a psychotherapist... and had a flirtation with the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University — but I never could get the hang of their Raja Yoga meditation malarkey.

Some time later, in 2006, my father was diagnosed with cancer and, 6 months on, as he finally succumbed, I witnessed him breathing his last.

My first experience of a live death, if you will, let alone the loss of a beloved family member, it had a profound effect on me. Amongst many things, it invoked an imperative to get off the fence about the whole sixty-four-thousand-dollar question: “Is there really a God and an afterlife?”

Well, it was around that time that Dawkins and his ‘God Delusion’ were attracting a lot of attention, so I bought a copy and read it. And thanks largely to it, I did indeed get off the fence.

Long story short: when Jehovas Witnesses come calling, as they do from time to time, I tell them not to bother; I’m born again...

A born again Atheist!

But that doesn’t mean to say I’ve closed my mind to some of the more ‘out there’ hypotheses on the nature of reality; I’m still an incurably curious ‘Coast To Coast’ subscriber.

And an Avalonian, of course.

Quote:

---

Posted by Shamz

what My humble opinion is - do you really need books to form your viewpoint of life. Can't you sit quite for a while...observe whats going on and how you feel.

Not only that... but what your instinct tells u...

---

Right on! :)

Nobody is smarter than you are...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yxfn5PFWYTk

Quote:

---

Posted by Vitalux

I think Richard Dawkins needs to drink.some ayahuasca

---

Graham Hancock is onto that one. :)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5UwvaSLbIgc

Quote:

---

Posted by RMorgan

I really don´t know how some of you guys can think so black and white.

Reading books is not the same thing as assuming a rigid posture regarding a certain subject.

For instance, anyone can read Dawkin´s The God Delusion and read Fred Hoyle´s The Inteligent Universe, which are completely opposing books, and enjoy reading them both.

It´s really important to read and analyze powerful arguments from different points of view if you´re trying to perceive the big picture. It´s crucial, in fact.

---

With me it's because of personal experiences, that I am 'spiritual' and I see and experience this subtle realm every day all the time, that's why whether or not this realm exists is indeed black and white for me. Call it God, the Dao, the Source(field) or whatever. Then again, in order to learn and to see where others are coming from it's good to listen to them and to be emphatic with them, of course.

Anyways, this point about hearing both sides out reminds me that there are some statements in the Satanic Bible, that I find rather useful:
Like out of the 9 Commandments:

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

Or from the 11 Rules:

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9. Do not harm little children.

But still, there's no way I could subscribe to Satanism :cool: When I read stuff like:

Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

or

If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

-------

I'm drifting away here, haven't even read this book from Dawkins. Just wanted to say, I hear everyone out but because of what I personally see and experience every now and then particular statements/books/informations seem to me like expressions created by someone who consciously or unconsciously limits himself, like reflections of how you could see things when you don't consider xyz... And then it's also an issue of where to spend/time energy. "Choose the path with heart", as Juan Matus would say. Right now I have other things on my mind and in my heart and probably won't read Dawkin's book in the near future :hat:

Quote:

---

Posted by Murray

Quote:

---

Posted by Vitalux

I think Richard Dawkins needs to drink.some ayahuasca

---

Graham Hancock is onto that one. :)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5UwvaSLbIgc

---

not a very scientific answer from Dr. Dawkins here

so basically, whatever he'll experience, ever, it'll be attributed to the high abilities of his beautiful, sensible brain??!!

what the **** does this mean???!!!

why would one's brain be so capricious @ times??

what's the need for my subconsciousness to contradict and trick it's own consciousness???!!!

i feel we're going nowhere with the modern science...

nowhere

and religions are indecipherable, mediocre @ best

very frustrated

Hi,

Thank you all, for your mature, intelligent, responses.

Adi

Hi Adi

This is just an afterthought - I've recently been watching and rewatching some of Rupert Sheldrake's excellent interviews and presentations - there's one talk in particular in which he addresses what he calls 'The Science Delusion' and what he terms the 10 dogmas of classical science - you'll find that by Googling Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion. The audio isn't too good - some poor woman with an obsessive cough - but it's a pertinent and often amusing presentation in terms of your original post. I hope it's of use to you.

Best wishes

Fructedor

Dawkins is the guy who in one book publishes the code for his bicycle padlock, and in the next book complains that someone has nicked his bike :)

From this we may conclude that he is either a) extremely disingenuous, or b) is so unaware of how the most everyday reality works that he doesn't understand c) what a bicycle padlock is for or d) the need to keep the code secret.

Either way, he is not a scientist I would trust, if indeed he is a scientist at all.

In the second book, Unweaving the Rainbow, he goes as far as to say that his bike code is the same as his code for the university photocopier. I wonder how many students have been doing their photocopies that way? ;)

Quote:

---

Posted by Adi

Hi there guys,

Id like to get the opinions from those that have read the god delusion by Richard Dawkins, what were your thoughts on it?, do you agree or disagree with his research and the topics that are discussed in the book.

I've just started reading it, and I must say Im quiet impressed with his argument, he has very strong arguments, and is excellent at backing up his opinions, and documenting the blatant truth of what religions do and the extreme consequences that it has on societies and populations.

Richard isn't afraid to state the realistic facts of the matter, though I do not agree on his complete dismissal of any sort of spiritual realty beyond this one, it is other wise a fascinating read.

All comments welcome!


Adi

---

Many religions talk about "God" but have nothing to do with God.

Many who are direct with God have nothing to do with religion.

I use the word "God" here because it is short, sweet and one syllable. The word only points to something and for me that's the best it (or any word or set of words) can do.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post535472

Post #9

Mind Blowingly Great Post - easily one of the best I ever read - Thanks Fructedor

I had never heard of the book before but checked it out after reading your post. I only skimmed through it. I do love a good debate, and found that he does make some interesting points, but in all honesty it is impossible to prove or dis-prove that God exists/doesn't exist. And call me bone headed, but in my heart I tend to follow what resonates in me and feels right, and in the deepest core of my soul, I do believe that a higher power exists. I do believe in a Creator. Perhaps one day I'll be proven wrong when I die, but until then, I will continue to believe.

For anyone that wishes to read the book, you can download the entire book for free.
http://hostfile.org/data/goddelusion...oddelusion.pdf

Richard Dawkins is doing and behaving like extreme religeous fanatics in that he's taken his disbelief
in god and simply turned that into his religeon.
I think he's extremely intelligent and logical like the english comedian Ricky Gervais, but both seem to have (because of their logical thinking)
closed the door on any possibility of an experience other than the one the've created for themselves.
I do admire their minds though

Quote:

---

Posted by Adi

Hi,

Thank you all, for your mature, intelligent, responses.

Adi

---

Hi Adi,

I met God through my dreams, delivered his messages and watched disasters of Biblical proportions that followed killing almost a million people...

I am a God fearing man, but I have also watched Major disasters hit where there were almost no injuries.

Most Atheist believe in God at the final moments, just in case, so don't accept what they share before they are dying as truths or fact, they are neither...

but, on a brighter note, anything that stretches peoples mind to question knowing is good for learning inner truths...

God = Glory or Destruction

the choice is ours...

He needs to drink a Big Gulp's worth of that DMT juice!

• Why Dawkins Is Wrong | Denis Noble Interview:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=dCLRKP9NW8I

In this interview, esteemed biologist Denis Noble explains why our approach to biology is the wrong way around. We thought that the sequencing of genetic information would unlock vast developments in medical cures for a whole host of illnesses. However, sequencing the genome alone hasn't revolutionised medicine. Denis Noble argues that we have our treatments the wrong way around. Instead, we need to recognise that genes are not on/off switches, and move beyond dualism in Biology. Watch world-famous scientist Richard Dawkins go head-to-head with celebrated biologist Denis Noble as they debate the role of genes over the eons at: iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine

• 00:00 Introduction
• 00:26 Why does the idea of genetic determinism have such a lasting appeal?
• 06:13 What do you see as the fault of this gene-centric Neo-Darwinian picture?
• 11:22 How did Darwin's view get distorted by Neo-Darwinism?
• 14:18 What is the alternative to genetic determinism?
• 17:55 Can determinism come from the environment?
• 22:37 What do you make of CRISPR and human enhancement?
• 24:53 What is the biggest question in molecular biology at the moment? Oxford Professor and one of the pioneers of Systems Biology, Noble developed the first viable mathematical model of the working heart in 1960.