'The Godless Delusion'

[Sophus]

So this book called 'The Godless Delusion: A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism' is suppose to be... uhu, challenging. My biggest problem with this book is not the mundane same old crappy arguments so much as the fact that they are basically saying, "nu-uh you are!" to Dawkins' books. It seems many theists are too uncreative to come back with any original material of their own.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Expecting groupthink to foster creativity is certain to end in letdown.

[Sophus]

Maybe it means the words being selected by such atheists are effective since they want us to think the same of ourselves.

"We're not deluded. You are! Nanner nanner..."

[Thumpalumpacus]

Or, it may mean that "I'm rubber and you're glue" still has legs, as an argument.  

[Keithzworld]

I would be interested to know how much research went into the writing of this book, let alone if they had actually read Dawkins God Delusion or even understood it.

[elliebean]

Or, it may mean that "I'm rubber and you're glue" still has legs, as an argument.   And don't forget this one:
[youtube:1azwfhhc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N64sd7k4M8E[/youtube:1azwfhhc]

[Martin TK]

So this book called 'The Godless Delusion: A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism' is suppose to be... uhu, challenging. My biggest problem with this book is not the mundane same old crappy arguments so much as the fact that they are basically saying, "nu-uh you are!" to Dawkins' books. It seems many theists are too uncreative to come back with any original material of their own.

Yeah, I was shocked when I started to look for book by theists and found that a LOT of them are written to debunk atheist's works, especially Dawkins.  I am amazed at the energy that theists put into Dawkins and in trying to either debunk him or discredit his work, which I take as he is really a threat to them because his works are so compelling.

[Martin TK]

I would be interested to know how much research went into the writing of this book, let alone if they had actually read Dawkins God Delusion or even understood it.

Bingo, and good thought there Keith.  I just finished reading the God Delusion about a week ago, and I found it a very compelling argument against religion and god.  I suspect that some of those on the Religious Right have indeed read it and found it to be as strong an argument as I did; thus, putting the "fear of god" in them that people will read it and see the truth.  Religion is BIG business, something that people sometimes forget.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So this book called 'The Godless Delusion: A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism' is suppose to be... uhu, challenging. My biggest problem with this book is not the mundane same old crappy arguments so much as the fact that they are basically saying, "nu-uh you are!" to Dawkins' books. It seems many theists are too uncreative to come back with any original material of their own.

Yeah, I was shocked when I started to look for book by theists and found that a LOT of them are written to debunk atheist's works, especially Dawkins.  I am amazed at the energy that theists put into Dawkins and in trying to either debunk him or discredit his work, which I take as he is really a threat to them because his works are so compelling.

Either that, or they're making the attribution fallacy; because they understand their faith is pointless if god is disproven, they attempt to disprove Dawkins, as if he's the only one who matters in freethought.

[Martin TK]

So this book called 'The Godless Delusion: A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism' is suppose to be... uhu, challenging. My biggest problem with this book is not the mundane same old crappy arguments so much as the fact that they are basically saying, "nu-uh you are!" to Dawkins' books. It seems many theists are too uncreative to come back with any original material of their own.

Yeah, I was shocked when I started to look for book by theists and found that a LOT of them are written to debunk atheist's works, especially Dawkins.  I am amazed at the energy that theists put into Dawkins and in trying to either debunk him or discredit his work, which I take as he is really a threat to them because his works are so compelling.

Either that, or they're making the attribution fallacy; because they understand their faith is pointless if god is disproven, they attempt to disprove Dawkins, as if he's the only one who matters in freethought.

My thoughts, too.

[stormcloud]

On one hand someone in here is doubting whether the authors even read Dawkins book, on the other hand another poster is criticizing it as merely another attempt to debunk Dawkin's book and that merely lends Dawkins legitimacy.

In answer to the first point, the cover art of the book is a direct commentary on the line of thought Dawkins employs and this connection is made clear in the book.  In answer to the second point, the fact is Dawkins has a following.  Rush Limbaugh has a following.  If the points he makes on the air are responded to directly in books and articles, does that give him credibility?

I'd be interested to see if anyone in here has the intellectual courage to read "The Godless Delusion" and honestly employ reason and critical thinking skills to it's contents.

[i_am_i]

Expecting groupthink to foster creativity is certain to end in letdown.

Now that's a quote!

One that I shall happily steal.

[The Magic Pudding]

I'd be interested to see if anyone in here has the intellectual courage to read "The Godless Delusion" and honestly employ reason and critical thinking skills to it's contents.

Why would anyone bother?
If there was one half decent defence of religion, theists wouldn't be beating us over the head with it.

[Will]

The book presupposes god, and is therefore not a valid critique of the so called new atheism movement. When you presuppose god, you've moved from a valid intellectual discussion to a useless discussion based on a false axiom. You have to prove god before you can factor him into the argument.

In internet speak, the book is fail.

[Thumpalumpacus]

i_am_i --

Have at it, and thanks for the vote, so to speak.  

On one hand someone in here is doubting whether the authors even read Dawkins book, on the other hand another poster is criticizing it as merely another attempt to debunk Dawkin's book and that merely lends Dawkins legitimacy.

I'm not sure if this is directed at my comment, but if so, it is misaimed.  Perhaps if you labeled tropes with the author's names, they might more easily provide clarification?

In answer to the first point, the cover art of the book is a direct commentary on the line of thought Dawkins employs and this connection is made clear in the book.  In answer to the second point, the fact is Dawkins has a following.  Rush Limbaugh has a following.  If the points he makes on the air are responded to directly in books and articles, does that give him credibility?

Not necessarily.  This is really a disguised argument ad populum.  Simply because Dawkins, or Limbaugh, are paid attention does not mean that their points are credible.  It only means those ideas are popular.

<snipped irrelevant pic>

I'd be interested to see if anyone in here has the intellectual courage to read "The Godless Delusion" and honestly employ reason and critical thinking skills to it's contents.

Perhaps you be kind enough to put forth your reasoning and critical thinking on it?  If you'd denigrate the courage of others, ought you not provide the example, by stating your own views?