Theists, agnostics, beleivers: Have you attempted to read a book by Richard Dawkins?

[Lobsang]

Inspired by Atheists, agnostics, & non-believers: do you enjoy reading any part of the Bible?.


When I read RD I find myself thoroughly enthralled by what I'm reading. If it's possible I become even more sure of the non-existence of a God than I already am.

But I can't help feeling sorry for RD a bit. He's putting all this effort into convincing the reader of the lack of a God (or in the case of the book I'm currently reading - the evidence for evolution) and yet the audience he hopes to target simply isn't reading the book. I would put money on the vast majority of RD readers already being Atheists and Evolution-beleivers.

I can quite beleive that a large proportion of Theists/Beleiver (and to a lesser extent - Agnostics) would actually be frightened to read one of the books, for fear of 'betraying' their religiousness and their God. I could have that completely wrong though. How would I know. I've never, in my adult life, been anything other than an Atheist.


Also. Richard often fails to restrain the mocking tone in a lot of places throughout his books. I personally find it extremely difficult to keep reading something if it says bad things about Atheism and Atheists. So I would imagine the same is true for Theists and Agnostics.

I am also a little bit afraid to ask this question. I might not like some of the replies it might attract. I am a huge fan of RD and to hear people being nasty about/towards him might not be easy to stomach.

But I'm letting my curiosity win over my timidity.


Atheists can answer if you like.


P.s. What I'm currently reading is "The Greatest Show on Earth" It is truly fascinating, and for the most part RD succesfully avoids any God-bashing and tries to focus directly on the subject of evolution itself. In some parts he even uses language that suggests he's conceding/assuming (for the sake of the text/argument) that there is a God.

[Jophiel]

No, but then I'm a quasi-Catholic who has no issues with evolution. So, beyond trying to convince me that God doesn't exist, I don't see much reason to bother with them.

[AHunter3]

Didn't we just DO this one?

Damn search engine... well it may not have had "Dawkins" in the thread title but the question itself was nearly verbatim.

Well OK not quite but the ground was covered at any rate.

[CalMeacham]

I've read lots of works by atheists making the case against God, but I have to admit that I've never read anything by Dawkins.

[Lobsang]

Originally Posted by AHunter3

Didn't we just DO this one?

Damn search engine... well it may not have had "Dawkins" in the thread title but the question itself was nearly verbatim.

Well OK not quite but the ground was covered at any rate.

I hardly think that's verbatim. This thread we're in now, takes one of the questions in that thread, and makes it a main thread subject. I am inviting people to talk about it. Not just to say "Yep. I've read a Dawkins book".

[Jodi]

I tried to read Dawkins but couldn't get through it because IMO he could not be even minimally respectful. I think people who are intentionally insulting must know their opponents are just going to walk away, as most people would when insulted. So to me his books are written for other hard-line atheists and he's basically preaching to the choir, which is one step up from talking to hear the sound of your own voice.

[Lobsang]

It's a shame, because I think if he was less abrasive towards the people who's mindsets he wishes to alter he might be more successful, and might sell more books.

And I think people are missing out on those bits where he manages to explain very complicated concepts using language that a layman can understand. I am willing to bet there are very few Zoologists/Evolutionary Biologists who could make.... me (for instance) understand Evolution in as much detail as I am able to by reading RD books.

And Religion for that matter. I don't think I'd understand religion anywhere near as much as I do had I not read the RD books that I have.

[AHunter3]

I'd have to say what I've said before: he has a notion of theists and theistic thought that accurately describes someone else but misses the mark considerably for me. I share some of his opinions, actually, but do not derive the same conclusions overall. I do not appear to be his target audience.

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by Lobsang

It's a shame, because I think if he was less abrasive towards the people who's mindsets he wishes to alter he might be more successful, and might sell more books.

I'm certain that's true, but I strongly suspect he doesn't really want to alter anyone's mindset.

[Czarcasm]

Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Jodi

I tried to read Dawkins but couldn't get through it because IMO he could not be even minimally respectful. I think people who are intentionally insulting must know their opponents are just going to walk away, as most people would when insulted. So to me his books are written for other hard-line atheists and he's basically preaching to the choir, which is one step up from talking to hear the sound of your own voice.

Is the Bible respectful of those who do not believe?

[Lobsang]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Is the Bible respectful of those who do not believe?

I think the point is - not being respectful doesn't help your cause. It doesn't help the cause of theists. And equally it doesn't seem to help the cause of Atheists.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Lobsang

I think the point is - not being respectful doesn't help your cause. It doesn't help the cause of theists. And equally it doesn't seem to help the cause of Atheists.

If one does not have respect for a book, should one fake it in order to appease others?

[Lobsang]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

If one does not have respect for a book, should one fake it in order to appease others?

I'm not sure what your point is but, No.

I don't think I'm asking anyone to pretend to like RD. Nor have I ever pretended to like the Bible. At worst I am apathetic about the Bible. I don't have any desire to read it. (I honestly do imagine it to be similar to the LoTR trilogy - which I have read in full, and found to be very tedious and difficult to get to the end) It was the opposite thread that inspired my curiosity. I have while reading RD wondered if there are ANY Theists reading this book, and have then wondered what they make of it, and if they are strong-willed enough to see past/through the lampooning and enjoy the rest of the book(s), the bits containing the science and the information.

[Busy Scissors]

I've not read him yet - keep meaning to. Unweaving the Rainbow is one I'd like to pick up - the idea that scientific understanding increases wonder, awe and artistry in the natural world really resonates with me.
I'm not interested in atheism v religion, evolution v creationism etc at all, seems like a sideshow to me but I guess that's what shifts units off the shelves. As a scientist I'd be more interested in reading his thoughts on science on it's own terms, rather than some US-centric tard fight about the validity of evolution / atheism.

[Rune]

I’ve read the Selfish Gene, the Extended Phenotype, the Blind watchmaker, River out of Eden some of Climbing Mount Improbable – not sure I completed the last one. Might be one of the few books started on that I didn’t finish. He was refreshing and had some bite in the Selfish Gene & the Blind watchmaker, but on the whole he seemed to be repeating the same arguments over and over again in the various books so that it became rather tedious after a while. I also find his anti-anything-not-science tirades rather tedious.

Respect has nothing to do with it. I fuck respect and piss down its throat.

[Nzinga, Seated]

Originally Posted by Lobsang

It's a shame, because I think if he was less abrasive towards the people who's mindsets he wishes to alter he might be more successful, and might sell more books.

Yeah, but he breaks down his view on this. In the God Delusion, he breaks down why he thinks it is important to take away the 'sheild of respect' (my phrase, not his) that religion has enjoyed.

There is indeed a group of people that exists that need 'baptism by fire'. I was one of those people.

When I was younger, a group called the Nation of Gods and Earths taught me that 'the black man is God'. This, they taught to a christian that not only believed in the god in the clouds, but also actually pictured a white god at that!!

It was much later that I came to an understanding of what I really did and did not believe, but to this day I am grateful to the Nation of Gods and Earths, because they SHOCKED me out of my dedication to christianity. Many that studied their lessons, my husband included, was instrumental in making me see how they were really useful in freeing someone's mind by shocking them in the opposite direction.

When some people are shocked to hear someone speak 'disrespectfully' about the oh-so-sacred religion of Christianity, they may just feel it is okay to think about that religion being wrong. Or fucking nuts.

Because, if someone believes that believing in God is delusional, why should they treat believers any differently than they would someone that talked about their imaginary friend? We wouldn't argue that someone with an imaginary friend deserves all kinds of sacred respect.

I admit though, that I am a Dawkins groupie. In my house, we sit around watching him on youtube like a bunch of slackjawed fans.

[ITR champion]

I read The God Delusion for the sake of a discussion on this very board. I found it terrible. Dawkins may be slightly better read and more polite than outright hatemongers like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but that's like saying that someone is more competent than Dubya--in other words, not very impressive. It's hard to decide where to begin on explaining the flaws in that book, but the most obvious one is simply how much of what he says is outright false. He repeats as many urban legends as Ann Landers. A quote by James Watt claiming that we can ignore the environment because the Rapture will be coming soon is in there. Two minutes of research would show that the quote is bogus. A story about a British mob who attacked a pediatrician after confusing the word with "pedophile" is in there. That's another urban legend. One might, of course, insist that those are minor issues, but Dawkins is just as wrong on the major issues. In wrapping up his main case that God doesn't exist because it's extremely improbable that God would come into being, he insists that certain physicists including Polkinghorne and Davies have never addressed this issue. Actually both have addressed this issue at great length and so have thousands of the other people, all of whom Dawkins deals with by ignoring them. Other errors I've started threads on. There's the section where he disproves the arguments of Thomas Aquinas by making up quotes of his own invention that Aquinas never wrote and then shooting them down. There's his bizarre claim about Martin Luther King's nonviolence tactics being based on Gandhi's teachings rather than those of Jesus, which King's words flatly contradict. There are the Bible passages that Dawkins rips out of context in order to flatly misrepresent. There's his utterly false claim that the four gospels were selected "arbitrarily" from among many. And there's... well, suffice to say, there's a lot more falsehoods, so many that multiple books have been written exposing them. Of course, whenever I point these out in GD, someone insists that me might not be lying, and that it might be honest mistakes on his part. If so, then his research standards are appalling low, but the point that the book is completely unreliable remains the same.

But even if I could ignore the majority of the book composed of glaring falsehoods, I would still find it a remarkably bad piece of rhetoric. The claims that Dawkins makes, particularly regarding evolution, are obviously completely bosh. Chapter 5 is chock full of pseudoscience, from the oft-debunked claim that temporal lobe epilepsy causes religion experiences to group selection--the later he admits can't be supported. In fact, the whole chapter has remarkably few references, especially when considering the scope of the claims he's making. His central hypothesis that "natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and elders tell them" gets a grand total of zero citation, for the obvious reason that it's not true. (I'm a teacher, so I know.) While he acknowledges that there's no certainty behind that hypothesis, I'm basically asked to accept that religion is adaptative on Dawkins' say-so, which would be problematic even if he were more truthful.

And then there's the infamous chapter 9, which I hesitate to mention since even Dawkins defenders generally won't defend it. He says that religious parents should not be allowed to raise their own children. (He also chastises the Catholic Church for once removing a child from his parents. Blatant hypocrisy seems to come standard here.) That might be the one part of the book is useful. I had known previously that some atheist groups often wanted to impose their will on minor issues, such as having a cross in a park, but without reading The God Delusion I would never have known that world's leading atheist has such total hatred for the most fundamental human rights.

Other then that, the book's main effect on me was to further convince me that Dawkins' beliefs are untenable, and thus it did a great deal to help build my faith in the correctness of Christian doctrine.

[Lobsang]

Wow.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Other then that, the book's main effect on me was to further convince me that Dawkins' beliefs are untenable, and thus it did a great deal to help build my faith in the correctness of Christian doctrine.

Well, to me the effect was to build my faith in the correctness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.





Just because there is some justification in jumping away from some atheistic tract, it does not follow that then we should make even more leaps to an specific way to deal with he/she/it

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

I read The God Delusion for the sake of a discussion on this very board. I found it terrible. Dawkins may be slightly better read and more polite than outright hatemongers like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but that's like saying that someone is more competent than Dubya--in other words, not very impressive. It's hard to decide where to begin on explaining the flaws in that book, but the most obvious one is simply how much of what he says is outright false. He repeats as many urban legends as Ann Landers. A quote by James Watt claiming that we can ignore the environment because the Rapture will be coming soon is in there. Two minutes of research would show that the quote is bogus. A story about a British mob who attacked a pediatrician after confusing the word with "pedophile" is in there. That's another urban legend. One might, of course, insist that those are minor issues, but Dawkins is just as wrong on the major issues. In wrapping up his main case that God doesn't exist because it's extremely improbable that God would come into being, he insists that certain physicists including Polkinghorne and Davies have never addressed this issue. Actually both have addressed this issue at great length and so have thousands of the other people, all of whom Dawkins deals with by ignoring them. Other errors I've started threads on. There's the section where he disproves the arguments of Thomas Aquinas by making up quotes of his own invention that Aquinas never wrote and then shooting them down. There's his bizarre claim about Martin Luther King's nonviolence tactics being based on Gandhi's teachings rather than those of Jesus, which King's words flatly contradict. There are the Bible passages that Dawkins rips out of context in order to flatly misrepresent. There's his utterly false claim that the four gospels were selected "arbitrarily" from among many. And there's... well, suffice to say, there's a lot more falsehoods, so many that multiple books have been written exposing them. Of course, whenever I point these out in GD, someone insists that me might not be lying, and that it might be honest mistakes on his part. If so, then his research standards are appalling low, but the point that the book is completely unreliable remains the same.

But even if I could ignore the majority of the book composed of glaring falsehoods, I would still find it a remarkably bad piece of rhetoric. The claims that Dawkins makes, particularly regarding evolution, are obviously completely bosh. Chapter 5 is chock full of pseudoscience, from the oft-debunked claim that temporal lobe epilepsy causes religion experiences to group selection--the later he admits can't be supported. In fact, the whole chapter has remarkably few references, especially when considering the scope of the claims he's making. His central hypothesis that "natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and elders tell them" gets a grand total of zero citation, for the obvious reason that it's not true. (I'm a teacher, so I know.) While he acknowledges that there's no certainty behind that hypothesis, I'm basically asked to accept that religion is adaptative on Dawkins' say-so, which would be problematic even if he were more truthful.

And then there's the infamous chapter 9, which I hesitate to mention since even Dawkins defenders generally won't defend it. He says that religious parents should not be allowed to raise their own children. (He also chastises the Catholic Church for once removing a child from his parents. Blatant hypocrisy seems to come standard here.) That might be the one part of the book is useful. I had known previously that some atheist groups often wanted to impose their will on minor issues, such as having a cross in a park, but without reading The God Delusion I would never have known that world's leading atheist has such total hatred for the most fundamental human rights.

Other then that, the book's main effect on me was to further convince me that Dawkins' beliefs are untenable, and thus it did a great deal to help build my faith in the correctness of Christian doctrine.

You have high standards indeed, my friend.
I'm curious-using those same high standards, how would you rate the Bible for accuracy and sensitivity to other viewpoints?

[Wesley Clark]

The majority of theists barely read the bible.

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/kno...ing-poll-says/

http://www.centerforbibleengagement....id=23&Itemid=7

In an interview with Assist News Service Rhodes quotes a recent poll, which indicates that 35% of born-again Christians do not read the Bible at all. In addition, Rhodes indicates that among those who say they read the Bible, the vast majority only read it during the one hour they attend church each Sunday morning


Altemeyer also had some info in his book 'the authoritarians' about evangelicals and a general lack of biblical literacy on their parts, but I don't remember where in his ebook.

I would assume a desire to read the work of Dawkins requires the desire to be introspective, and religious fundamentalism is negatively correlated with introspection. According to Robert Altemeyer, religious evangelicalism is correlated with right wing authoritarianism, which has traits such as dogmatism, compartmentalized thinking and closed mindedness.


So I'm not surprised that Dawkin's audience is made up of people who are already agnostics. I don't think most evangelicals have the kinds of personalities that would lead them to read something by Dawkins.

I believe the majority of people who reject Dawkin's ideas do it because they find religious ideas more comforting and more socially acceptable, not because they've logically debated the merits of creationism vs evolution.

[dangermom]

I tried to read The God Delusion, but got bored in the first couple of chapters. He hates religion, blah blah blah, I get it already. In my view, he totally misses the point of religion much of the time--at least of mine. I don't feel like his rantings even apply to my POV, and even if they did, I have a hard time taking ranting seriously. I'd be much happier to read a calm, civil, reasoned argument. (That said, I have read and am familiar with pretty much every anti- argument out there. BTDT, am moving on into more interesting areas of study.)

My husband has really enjoyed his books on evolution, and I'd read one of those. But we both feel that he's useless on the subject of religion.

[emarkp]

I'm most of the way through The God Delusion, and have read bits of Climbing Mount Probable. Where Dawkins soars is his description and explanation of evolutionary biology.

He fails pretty much anywhere else. I'm taking the book in audio form, and he reads it with his wife, switching between them randomly, making some of it a bit hard to follow. His attacks on religion are pretty much pathetic straw men. To support his idea that atheists in the US are oppressed he cited a few "facts" that aren't actually the case.

Like many learned people, he seems to think that being an expert on one thing has made him an expert on all things. He comes off pretty silly and ignorant actually.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I've read The God Delusion. I must confess that I don't see the disrespect or mockery that other people seem to find. He uses analogies like the tea tray and stuff and points out that people would quite rightly be called delusional if they expressed some of the same sorts of beliefs about other supernatural beings besides God (for isntance, someone who thinks Zeus is talking to them is considered nuts, but if Jesus talks to them, they're just fine).

There's nothing "mocking" in any of that, it's just a way of showing how truly peculiar and empirically unjustified religious belief really is. A lot of people maybe most) never really consider just how strange theistic belief really is, so Dawkins makes them feel uncomfortable. That doesn't make Dawkins' points any less valid or unfair, though.A lot of Christians get indignant about Jesus belief being compared to Zeus beliefs, but they can never actually explain why it's not fair.

I like Dawkins, but I think I prefer Hitchens for entertainment value. He's so dyspeptic and unconcerned about hurting anyone's feelings.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Jophiel

No, but then I'm a quasi-Catholic who has no issues with evolution. So, beyond trying to convince me that God doesn't exist, I don't see much reason to bother with them.

Yeah, that's me. I read too slowly to waste my time on polemics or mere statements of obvious fact.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I will say that Dawkins reaches too far when he tries to attack organized religion as a social institution. Most of the counterattacks on Dawkins are on that point, since there really isn't any rebuttal to his demolition of supernatural beliefs. Getting sidetracked onto arguments about whteher the Catholic Church does more good or bad just allows his critics to avoid having to answer any of the really significant stuff.

[Cisco]

My favorite book of his was The Ancestor's Tale. I get pissed when people say his books are just hateful diatribes against religion because I don't recall this one even mentioning religion.

I haven't read The God Delusion for the same reason I didn't finish Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them and What's the Matter with Kansas?: I already know I agree with it.

[Zoe]

ITR champion: There's his bizarre claim about Martin Luther King's nonviolence tactics being based on Gandhi's teachings rather than those of Jesus, which King's words flatly contradict.

From Gunnar Jahn's 1964 Nobel Peace Prize Presentation Speech
To Martin Luther King, Jr.
((Jahn was Chairman of the Nobel Committee):

"Gandhi" [Dr. King] says, "was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force..."

In Gandhi's teaching he found the answer to a question that had long troubled him: How does one set about carrying out a social reform?

"I found " he tells us, "in the nonviolent resistance philosophy of Gandhi... the only morally and practically sound method open to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom."

Yet you claim that the idea that Dr. King had based his nonviolent philosophy upon the work of Gandhi is bizarre and that your link flatly refutes it. Your link doesn't even mention Gandhi. It just leads to a long sermon. Next time, how about a direct quote instead of wasting my time looking for something to back you up?

[jjimm]

I think Dawkins shoots himself in the foot.

I've read a couple of his evolutionary explanations, and they are compelling: beautifully written, and immaculately argued. River out of Eden was particularly good.

It would be wonderful if Theists, religious people, could read these books in isolation and marvel at their content. But they can't, because he wrote The God delusion, which is, IMO, a let-down in argument, and needlessly provocative in style.

ITR Chamption, here's MLK himself talking about the influence of Gandhi: video.

[Fake Tales of San Francisco]

I thought The Selfish Gene was very good until he started talking about religion. He seemed very much out of his depth and made a lot of mistakes about theology, but hey, he's a biologist, he should stick to that. No idea how he became the spokesman for atheism based on his arguments against theism I've read.

I'm agnostic.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Originally Posted by jjimm

I think Dawkins shoots himself in the foot.

I've read a couple of his evolutionary explanations, and they are compelling: beautifully written, and immaculately argued. River out of Eden was particularly good.

It would be wonderful if Theists, religious people, could read these books in isolation and marvel at their content. But they can't, because he wrote The God delusion, which is, IMO, a let-down in argument, and needlessly provocative in style.

Personally, I liked the God delusion, but then, I'm already an atheist, and I think that puts me right in the intended audience.

Maybe his next book "The Greatest Show on Earth" (out this month) will be less confrontational to (some) believers; it's supposed to be all about the evidence for evolution. http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle6805656.ece

[Captain_Awesome]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

A story about a British mob who attacked a pediatrician after confusing the word with "pedophile" is in there. That's another urban legend.

Your fact checking could use a little fact checking, to say nothing of your logic.

[cosmosdan]

I read part of the God Delusion but never felt he was talking about beliefs I held. He seemed to be speaking of more traditional Christian beliefs. I never finished.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Cisco

My favorite book of his was The Ancestor's Tale. I get pissed when people say his books are just hateful diatribes against religion because I don't recall this one even mentioning religion.

Me, too. That was one of the most interesting books I've read in the last decade. I find myself going back to it all the time.

[Revenant Threshold]

I don't think i'd call Dawkins openly mocking, per se. That is to say, I don't believe that on all occasions in the book where offense may be found it's due to him wanting to cause offense. He just seems to have something of a logical disconnect - he gets that religious people have strong, personal views on the subject, he gets that questioning those viewpoints can itself be considered rude or unpleasant, more so than questioning many other subjects, but then doesn't really tailor his book to suit those ideas. It's like saying, "Hey, people don't like it when you insult them, you idiot". I don't know whether the book is supposed to be written with theists in mind (really, i'd have to agree it seems to be preaching to the choir), but theists are going to read it regardless.

That said, while I certainly don't hold the same views that I recall ITR Champion holding from that series of threads, I don't think he's particularly fantastic as far as a representative or an explainer of atheism goes. As far as the biology goes, perhaps more so, but i'm not really knowledgeable enough myself to be able to evalutate that. But I don't really consider that he has much in the way of especial insights or formulation of argument that makes up for the fact what negatives he brings.

Really, what's needed at this point is someone who's more polite and more careful.

[Darwin's Finch]

I am of a different school of evolutionary thought than Dawkins, so I tend to disagree with his scientific works (e.g., The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, etc.). Not that he has nothing worthwhile in his theories, but I believe he tends to overreach them far too often, and seems to want natural selection to be the only driver of evolution, rather than just the primary one.

If I want to know something about ethology, I might look up what he has to say on the matter (given that he is an ethologist by training). Genetics? Not so much. Evolution in general? He doesn't say anything that hasn't really already been said, and been said better. I can't say I really care much for his prose, either.

I couldn't care less what he has to say about religion or creationism vs. evolution.

[Lobsang]

What other drivers are there for evolution?

[Captain_Awesome]

Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold

Really, what's needed at this point is someone who's more polite and more careful.

I don't see why. People who don't think objectively aren't going to be persuaded on the basis of logic. If the cumulative weight of cosmology, biology, geology, some-other-ology, and the internal logical and moral fallacies of religion haven't provided a believer with the impetus to realise their faith is misguided, explaining it more eloquently won't change that fact. I seriously doubt the number of believers that have 'seen the light' in this forum on the basis of discussion would approach the number of digits on one hand.

[Darwin's Finch]

Originally Posted by Lobsang

What other drivers are there for evolution?

Sexual selection and genetic drift, to name two. There are also the limiting factors of genetic, developmental, or morphological constraints.

[Lobsang]

Originally Posted by Darwin's Finch

Sexual selection and genetic drift, to name two. There are also the limiting factors of genetic, developmental, or morphological constraints.

He does mention those first two. (At least he does in "The Greatest Show on Earth") In fact he goes into some detail about sexual selection.

I haven't finished the book yet.


On a seperate note, I'm curious: Why was this thread moved to GD, but the thread that inspired it is still in IMHO?

[Revenant Threshold]

Originally Posted by Captain_Awesome

I don't see why. People who don't think objectively aren't going to be persuaded on the basis of logic. If the cumulative weight of cosmology, biology, geology, some-other-ology, and the internal logical and moral fallacies of religion haven't provided a believer with the impetus to realise their faith is misguided, explaining it more eloquently won't change that fact. I seriously doubt the number of believers that have 'seen the light' in this forum on the basis of discussion would approach the number of digits on one hand.

Perhaps. But it might make us look a bit better.

Beyond that, people are simply more willing to listen to others who are willing to treat them better or behave more pleasantly. I'm sure the amount of believers who've changed their minds as a result of this forum are very small; nevertheless, I would imagine it is a greater amount than would be so if Der Trihs were the only representative of the athiest side. Too, it's not simply an either/or debate; there might be few people who've crossed from theist to athiest or vice-versa, but certainly i'd think there's a good few people on either side who have adjusted their thoughts within those boundaries. I know I have. And that's a worthwhile debate, too.

[Candyman74]

Not read it. No interest in being preached to by a believer or a non-believer. Both are doing the same thing.

Plus, from what I hear, he's incredibly rude to people who don't agree with him. So fuck him. Civility is free, and has nothing to do with belief. I don't listen to religious evangelists either; why would I listen to an anti-religious evangelist?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Candyman74

Plus, from what I hear, he's incredibly rude to people who don't agree with him.

You heard wrong. There are any number videos of Dawkins in public debates and other interactions online, and Dawkins is unfailingly calm, polite and civil to those who disagree with him. This meme that he's "rude" is completely made up.

[Candyman74]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

You heard wrong. There are any number videos of Dawkins in public debates and other interactions online, and Dawkins is unfailingly calm, polite and civil to those who disagree with him. This meme that he's "rude" is completely made up.

Well, like I said, it's just what I heard; I've no illusions it may be wrong. That said, there's nothing that's mkaing me feel compelled me to hear his opinions any more than anyone else's, whether religious or not.

[DrCube]

Dawkins didn't write The God Delusion for theists, obviously. It is a book written by an atheist for atheists. The goal is to strengthen the arguments for atheism among atheists, so that they will be better prepared to debate their religious opponents and family and friends.

It is also meant to counter the very real bias against atheists by showing us that we're not alone and that religion really is that wacky. When everybody you care about and everybody in power tells you that the only way to live is according to the whims of a sky fairy that were written down thousands of years ago by ignorant, primitive and violent misogynists, you begin to think maybe YOU are the crazy one. I think a main goal of this book is to counteract that.

And count me in with those who don't see Dawkins as rude in any way. He is very respectful of theists and those who argue against him. He just isn't very respectful of imaginary beings; I can't say I blame him there. God is a fucker if he exists.

[Cisco]

Originally Posted by Candyman74

Well, like I said, it's just what I heard; I've no illusions it may be wrong. That said, there's nothing that's mkaing me feel compelled me to hear his opinions any more than anyone else's, whether religious or not.

"Fuck him. For what I've heard. Even though it may be wrong."

(Which it is.)

He's only one of our greatest living scientists. Why should you bother with his "opinions"? I mean, after all, you've heard he's a dick. Rumors trump all, I guess.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by Candyman74

Not read it. No interest in being preached to by a believer or a non-believer. Both are doing the same thing.

No, they are not. Surely you can recognise that there is a difference between presenting fiction as if it was fact and presenting fact as if it was fact?

[Cisco]

Originally Posted by DrCube

Dawkins didn't write The God Delusion for theists, obviously. It is a book written by an atheist for atheists. The goal is to strengthen the arguments for atheism among atheists, so that they will be better prepared to debate their religious opponents and family and friends.

It is also meant to counter the very real bias against atheists by showing us that we're not alone and that religion really is that wacky. When everybody you care about and everybody in power tells you that the only way to live is according to the whims of a sky fairy that were written down thousands of years ago by ignorant, primitive and violent misogynists, you begin to think maybe YOU are the crazy one. I think a main goal of this book is to counteract that.

And count me in with those who don't see Dawkins as rude in any way. He is very respectful of theists and those who argue against him. He just isn't very respectful of imaginary beings; I can't say I blame him there. God is a fucker if he exists.

That is the best description I have ever heard of it. I am going to read it now. Thank you.

[Candyman74]

Originally Posted by Grumman

No, they are not. Surely you can recognise that there is a difference between presenting fiction as if it was fact and presenting fact as if it was fact?

You appear to be presenting an argument to me (that religious beliefs are fiction). I'm not here to debate it; I was merely saying that I'm not interested in either side of the debate. Both sets of folks are fine as long as they don't preach to me.