EPIC FAIL: The God Delusion

[Marduk]

Minus refrences to the internet (which is a tool for both truth and falsehood, people being people), it seems to me that a small group of upper-class Greeks made similar statements 2500 years ago.

Pass the Hemlock please

 

[caniswalensis]

Thanks Canis.

If I may, I'd like to recommend a book that is far from insulting. Julian Jaynes, "Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown.."

Seriously, give it a shot. It's two things. A surprisingly engrossing book, and definitely not a polemic by any stretch. Also, he makes history taste like ice cream.

Sounds good, I'll check it out.

Thanks, pal!

 

[hgc]

The best book I've read on this topic is still Sagan's Demon Haunted World.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Seconded.*










*Demon Haunted World, not The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

 

[caniswalensis]

Thirded!!!

I love that book.

 

[bozman]

Fifthed!

...

Doh!

 

[Marduk]

In January 2006 I presented a two-part television documentary on
British television (Channel Four) called Root of All Evil? From the
start, I didn't like the title. Religion is not the root of all evil, for
no one thing is the root of all anything

maths not his strong point then

 

[Limbo]

I don't think that he'd particularly meant to provide an alternative to religion, my impression from the book is that you don't need an alternative to it because it doesn't serve any purpose.

How self-centered of you.

For most of us on this board it is indeed preaching to the converted.

Yup. It's like a support group where the smart kid clique can hang out and pat each other on the back and congratulate each other for being so very bright. When an unsuspecting woo-woo drops by to enlighten you poor sods, you guys get your sport by swarming on him or her like a ravenous pack of wolves. It's not about education here, it's about sport and circle-jerks.

I haven't read TGD, but I spent years at his forum before it went down, and I have heard Dawkins vent his spleen before, and his fanbois do a pretty good job of regurgitating his crap again and again. The man is a fool. And I say all that as someone who opposes religious fundamentalism.

 

[jasonpatterson]

An unfortunate comparison! I'll say this for multiverses: there's no one currently claiming that The Multiverse condemns me to a lake of fire.

But in all the infinite universes, there must exist at least one where you've been condemned to a lake of fire.

 

[Sun Countess]

When an unsuspecting woo-woo drops by to enlighten you poor sods, you guys get your sport by swarming on him or her like a ravenous pack of wolves. It's not about education here, it's about sport.

Enlighten?

All we ask for are facts. So far, none are forthcoming from any religious quarter. It's all just the same misogynistic mythologies, twisted into a few different shapes to try to appeal to broader masses, who don't have the sense to question why they're handing over their money to a bunch of hucksters. The hucksters get wealth and power and the religious feel that they've saved their non-existent souls. Sounds like a win-win situation, but not from where I'm sitting.

The deluded can't really offer up much in the way of "enlightening."

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I love the book. I think Dawkins nailed the majority of it. EXCEPT....

Except the part where he was supposed to present an argument regarding what might replace religion.The last bit of the book.

Educated people can easily grasp his sections on the Burka Slit, Consolation, and Inspiration, but, it is insultingly lacking any clear or simplified tagline. Which is what simpletons require.

Instead, Dawkins delves into this science-driven yada yada that speaks only to the converted. WE KNOW THIS. The choir has been preached to already, WE KNOW.

What interests me, is a philosopher who can swing the guillotine down on those moderates whose gigantic argument is rooted in the question: "What are you gonna replace it with?" In this, Mr Dawkins fails, pathetically.

No one, not even Dawkins, can tell you what to replace Religion with because each person has different needs and as it has already been pointed out here, not everyone needs to replace it with anything at all in the first place.

The strongest rebuttal remains rooted in reality. "Religion is required if we are to keep the dregs in order. Most people are too stupid to understand science anyway."

No. That's far from being the strongest rebuttal. What that is saying in other words is "Aw, forget it. Science is just too hard. People will never learn it. Lets completely forget about finding new, alternative ways to teach it. Let ignorance remain as it is"

We didn't always have Bill Nye, Carl Sagan or even Beakman, and those guys did manage to stir a bit more of interest in science in the young audiences. Sure, we still have a lot of way to go but stopping on our heels and deciding to let ignorance prevail doesn't sound to me like a smart alternative at all.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

TBH, I'm not sure why you'd want a replacement for religion.

Human society has done a great job of figuring out how to live with each other regardless of religion, and often in spite of religion. E.g., getting the Magna Carta signed meant going not just against the king, but also against the pope (who still fancied himself a sort of a sovereign over kings) and religion.

Nowadays, we have secular laws to keep the "dregs" in line, again often in spite of what their religion might say. E.g., we don't let them do an exorcism and kill the victim just because their particular delusion says it's the right thing to do, we don't give Muslims free hand to kill their disobedient daughters, etc.

If anything, the bits which still are passed for relevant from the Bible (or Tanakh, Quran, Analects, etc) are so cherry-picked, that really it shows that society _already_ had the moral compass necessary to pick those and not the bad parts. It's not the Bible which keeps the "dregs" in line, it's the "dregs" which are very good at living with each other anyway and at most cherry-pick some line from there as rationalization for what they were already doing.

Of course, that's from the point of view of godless Europe and particularly godless Germany. We got out of counter-enlightenment a long time ago. And had plenty of historical examples of why we don't need to organize ourselves around a religion. We've had the Hussite wars, the 30 year war, inquisitions, and so on, in the name of why everyone should worship the same flavour of God and in the same way and at the same church, and frankly it wasn't the good times. And you can go even further back and remember basic stuff like how the church weakened the HRE in the investiture controversy (you know, the "gang nach Canossa" part) and in various other points, and how we never really recovered from each such screw-up. We learned to function happily without everyone going to the same church on Sunday, and in fact with a sort of a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude to everyone else's beliefs and practices.

Even if the majority aren't atheists, we really don't need religion to keep us organized and living with each other. The fact that one neighbour is eastern orthodox, another is catholic, another is muslim, another is protestant, and each goes to their own church while I play WoW or read the forums, is what I'm talking about. We can function as a city or as a country, even if there is no church where we all get together.

And frankly if Europe can function and have some vibrant communities without requiring them to revolve around a church, I fail to see why the USA needs anyone to give it a replacement for religion either.

Ultimately people will still group to do something or another that interest them. Some will go to some book club, some will go to the pub, some will go compare their photos of squirrels in the park, some will go to a linux user group, some to a fitness club, or some will just celebrate the Lord's day at the mall of their choice. There are plenty of groups you can fit in and topics you can talk about, even if you took religion out of the equation completely.

So why does anyone need to be given an alternative?

 

[Paulhoff]

Religion is good for making it all about us and them.

Paul

 

[Mister Agenda]

If you must replace your religion, there's always Unitarian Universalism. Close enough to religion to make you feel good, far enough that it doesn't count towards a Boy Scout's religion merit badge.

 

[Hawk one]

An unfortunate comparison! I'll say this for multiverses: there's no one currently claiming that The Multiverse condemns me to a lake of fire.

I claim that -you- happen to be in the one universe amongst all those universes that are to be condemned into a lake of fire!

All the multiverse copies of you will be fine, though.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

If you must replace your religion, there's always Unitarian Universalism. Close enough to religion to make you feel good, far enough that it doesn't count towards a Boy Scout's religion merit badge.

But that's exactly what I don't get. The sheer number of people who feel that they must go to some other church instead, if they let go of god. Whether it be UU or some bogus carricature of witchcraft/asatro/druidism/shamanism/ancient-egyptian-religion.

Why? No, I'm not just trying to talk you out of it, I just don't understand why would one need to do that.

Why not go to a book club, bridge club, pub, or whatever? I mean it's not even like the alternatives are to go to church or be a hermit.

 

[Sun Countess]

I agree with Hans. I've never had religious "time" in my life, and I've certainly had other things to do that made me feel good. I was better served by spending an hour a week in the library every Tuesday than I would have been spending an hour a week on Sunday learning about how sinful I was.

Just think if everybody spent that church time working for a volunteer organization helping the less fortunate. Infinitely better than praying for god to help.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I'd ask someone here to lend me a copy but don't want to be killed in the landslide.

Borrow it from your public library - that's what I did. They might even have it available to download so you could read or listen to it on a mobile device.

And the best part...it's FREE!!!

 

[Mark6]

Can you really see Winston Churchill rallying the country around an atheist cause ?

Possibly. Churchill was very good at rallying.

Everyone knows it was the Nazis who were Godless

At the risk of Godwinizing this thread... "everyone" is wrong.

Almost all Germans in 1940's, members of Nazi party or not, were raised Christians and were Christians. Even if Hitler himself was not (which is debatable), he simply was not in power long enough to move populace from is Christian upbringing to something else. These sort of things take generations.

Notice Wermacht slogan: "Gott mit uns!"

 

[blutoski]

This is one of the things that distinguishes different types of atheists.

Most atheists have no need for atheist societies, rituals, meetings, buildings, "communities", &c. Many others desperately need and create them. Thus the comparison to a religion.

Barry Beyerstein used to say that Humanists were atheists with a hangup about what to do on Sunday morning. I get the impression that Dawkins is an atheist of this type.

As for me: I think I'm like Mustermann. I find it hard to understand, but observe that it's a real need for some atheists.