On the subject of atheism.

[zorkan]

I have the book, I have read it carefully. Dawkins does a pretty good job of making his point of view applicable to reality. The book is probably on the prohibited list in many red state American libraries.

I can't find any evidence it is banned in any state. I assume some libraries simply won't keep it.

Yes Dawkins has failed to persuade or reason with the people who will not, or cannot, read his book. What I mean by "cannot" is that potential learners are prohibited by their religious peers from reading such "ungodly trash".

The book was written about 20 years ago now, and it does appear to have aged. I ended up buying 3 copies.
He probably started to write most of it after 911.
His forum richarddawkins.net didn't last long. It became a platform for anarchists and closed.
I think he should have seen that coming.
 

Dawkins and others of similar persuasion are pissing against the tide of the religious establishment.

They have probably helped in a limited way to help make the UK a more of a place of free thought.

Some of us, a growing number of us, are slowly removing ourselves from the self imposed slavery to religion. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sagan, Steele, and others have helped keep the ball rolling. 

"self imposed slavery to religion" or of religion?

Based on population census every 10 years (latest in 2021) : "In 1981, 82% of the Pre-War generation in Britain said they believed in God – but this is now down to 59%. Baby Boomers have followed a similar trend, with 2022 marking the first time less than half (48%) said they believed in God. But Gen Z (37%) have the lowest levels of belief.1 May 2023".

Maybe they prefer to hear something more contemporary than the bible.
"The first and most important commandment was that they must not worship any god other than the Lord. Whoever violated this commandment should be killed and Exodus 22:20 reads "Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed."

Maybe they are aware of this:
"The Quran has 123 verses that call for fighting and killing anyone who does not agree with the statement, "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet." Jews and Christians are specifically included among such "infidels."
The Quran's Sura 5:33 says about infidels, "They shall be slain or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off." Sura 9:5 says, "Slay the infidels wherever you find them ... and lie in wait for them ... and establish every stratagem (of war against them)." Sura 47:4-9 promises paradise to whoever cuts off the head of an infidel.

[zorkan]

The next time you hear about god's love, consider how many times the word love is mentioned in the bible.
The answer is zero. The bible wasn't written in English.
Only from nuanced words can the figure be given as anything from 300 to 800.

By comparison:
https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

If your finger gets tired of scrolling, the answer is about 25 million.

[Icarus]

Here is a tip of the hat to you Zorkan. You have posted many references that suggest that you have studied your subject very well.

If you were a Christian preacher, you would be dangerous.

[Asmodean]

My overall opinion of The God Delusion is that it was a book for its time and of its time, as it was for its audience.

Personally, I did not learn many new things from it, nor saw anything noteworthy in a different light after reading it - at least not to the best of what I can remember.

Beyond that, this here was well-said.

Dawkins does a pretty good job of making his point of view applicable to reality.

***

Some of us, a growing number of us, are slowly removing ourselves from the self imposed slavery to religion. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sagan, Steele, and others have helped keep the ball rolling. 

It was an important piece of literature for many who arrived at similar conclusions but dared not or could not openly voice them, or those who had godlessness "in the back of their mind," but did not know how to formulate their position.

It has helped shape and sharpen some - many, I suppose - athesits' view on religion and their own lack of faith.

[zorkan]

A year after the GD was published arrived a book by Victor Stenger - God: the Failed Hypothesis.
Where Dawkins emphasises evolution, Stenger takes a broader view with cosmology.
Together they make a compelling argument.
I like Dawkins' comment that religion makes you lazy. You don't need to think, you just obey as a member of the herd.
In schools all over the world science in the form of evolutionary biology and cosmology is pushed into the background by religious studies. That's because schools don't want free thought. They want you to obey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God:_The_Failed_Hypothesis

""All freethinkers should have both volumes The God Delusion and God: The Failed Hypothesis, side by side, on their bookshelves."

[billy rubin]

dawkins is a pioneering sociobioligist, but i have found his writings on religion pretty shallow. his flaw is that he needs to define god as a cosmic richard dawkins, and if he finds that the proposed god behaves in a way that he wouldnt, then its god that is unlikely, rather than his conception of god.


the selfish gene should be required reading for anybody wanting to think about biogenesis, but i dont see his other stuff as useful.

[Asmodean]

the selfish gene should be required reading for anybody wanting to think about biogenesis, but i dont see his other stuff as useful.

I'd like to the first sentence, while mildly disagreeing with the second.

Whie I do agree that the good professor's writings lack a certain depth, when taken into account who they seem to be for, there may be room for baby steps.

It's a bit like in a different conversation, zorkan provided a "pop-sci" article referring to a very watered-down (and/or overly-rigid) view of thermodynamics and the implications of its second law. In a deep dive, that kind of scope of inquiry would (and did) leak like Titanic after the whole iceberg thing. However, if you approach it from "I have no idea what this is. Where do I start?" then it provides an easier to digest model of reality than some overly-picky picker of nits like a certain The Asmo would be easily-capable of. (Though if I do say so myself, my nits tend to be rather important to whatever the subject at hand is)

I don't mean to throw shade at your sources or arguments, Z - just pointing out through direct comparison that while they may appear shallow and incomplete to you or me, they do provide a springboard for future discussion. As such, I do see "pop-sci/pop-phil" literature as useful.

[billy rubin]

dawkins may give comfort to struggling atheists, but it doesnt change his philosophical blindness.

much of his biological arguments against god-- such as the blood vessels in the neck of the giraffe-- are merely pretentious statements of "i wouldnt have done it thst way if i were god, therefore god does not exist . . . "

dawkins wanted to be the new t h huxley, but he doesnt have the insight huxley had.

or the humility.

[Icarus]

I have Stengers book;The God Delusion, Science and Religion; Paul Kurtz, The God Virus; Darrel Ray, Inventing Jesus; Pail Gabel, A God who Hates: Wafa Sultan.......and a few others including The Book of Morman, the KJV, and so on.

The Book of Morman was given to me by two very nice young men who were on their church obligation to spread the truth of the church of LAtter Day Saints..  Rocks in a hat in order to read the goldens tablets and all that sort of horse patootie. The nice young men did not believe that the Smith guy was a horny huckster who was promoting bigamous arrangements.. 

I did not buy and read these books so that I could reinforce my Atheism. I didn't need that help.

One of my favorite books is one that I was required to read in my college days. It is titled, Three Ways of Thought In Ancient China. Christianity is not one of the ways of thought in that book. Holy Cow! Can you imagine a college that required that their students consider the validity of a way of thought that was not Christian religion encumbered? Holy Cow Again!!! That university was a state uni; The University of Florida which is in the deep south. Times have changed big time I fear.

[Asmodean]

much of his biological arguments against god-- such as the blood vessels in the neck of the giraffe-- are merely pretentious statements of "i wouldnt have done it thst way if i were god, therefore god does not exist . . . "

I think pointing out poor design decisions for no apparent cause is actually not a bad argument. Being into engineering, there are often compromises to be made, but there is always a reason to make them. In the case of the giraffe, it's far more reasonable to assume that an animal evolved from a form where the configuration of its neck nerves or arteries or whatever was it was efficient enough to one where it was merely not [enough of a] a hindrance, thus allowing the animal to live. While constructing a giraffe, however, there are good reasons not to rout its plumbing that way and no good reasons to do it. Thus, to what end did god supposedly do it?

The meaning I take from it is that the template for "intelligent design" is, in fact, evolution by natural selection. (As in, god would have been likely to have followed a common template when designing different animals, creating - or evolving - imperfect systems from common roots. If we then drop the unnecessary variable - that being a god - well... Here we are) But then, I am prone to overthinking, so there is that.

[The Magic Pudding..]

dawkins may give comfort to struggling atheists, but it doesnt change his philosophical blindness.

much of his biological arguments against god-- such as the blood vessels in the neck of the giraffe-- are merely pretentious statements of "i wouldnt have done it thst way if i were god, therefore god does not exist . . . "

dawkins wanted to be the new t h huxley, but he doesnt have the insight huxley had.

or the humility.

He isn't the only one to point out flaws in intelligent design, which are to expected in an evolutionary process.
A peculiar bullshit post Billy but you decrying Dawkins for a lack of humility was a hoot.

[zorkan]

My atheist toolkit comprises these books.

The Devil's Chaplain by Robert Taylor.
The Diegesis by Robert Taylor.
Bible Myths by Thomas Doane.
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.

You should be able to read them all online.

Take a look at this, if you haven't already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nAos1M-_Ts

Gets even more chilling after 40 minutes.

Just like to add that for the first time ever, today I've heard a guy shouting out Allah Akbar in a public place.

[billy rubin]

"intelligent design" doesnt mean intelligently designed. it means designed by an intelligence. theres no requirement that the design must be well-engineered, merely that occurence by chance is unlikely.

if you can find anything intelligent in a jackson pollock painting i will reconsider the point.

richard dawkin's arrogance is in his belief that the only real god must exist in the image of richard dawkins. thats not something most people assert, and dawkins is too dumb to see it.

still, hes a dotty-uncle kind of dumb. not hateful, just dotty.

[The Magic Pudding..]

"intelligent design" doesnt mean intelligently designed. it means designed by an intelligence. theres no requirement that the design must be well-engineered, merely that occurence by chance is unlikely.

Bullshit distinction

if you can find anything intelligent in a jackson pollock painting i will reconsider the point.

More bullshit, I couldn't give a fk what you deign to consider.

richard dawkin's arrogance is in his belief that the only real god must exist in the image of richard dawkins. thats not something most people assert, and dawkins is too dumb to see it.

Ad hominem bullshit

still, hes a dotty-uncle kind of dumb. not hateful, just dotty.

Oh ye he must be dotty, he is an English professor after all.

[billy rubin]

well, you wrote a lot for not giving a fuck.