The God Delusion

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Yahunyahti, Aug 24, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    I bought the book by Richard Dawkins last night and decided to re-read it. I admit that the first time I read it I opened the book expecting to disagree (due to Menaz' staunch references to it in making very ignorant and ill informed statements) and so I didn't really soak up what it was that Dawkins was saying. It occurred to me that sometimes it is necessary to read a book twice, or perhaps even a third time, to catch those things which were not caught the first time around.

    Sooo, I am on page 43 now and have encountered two problems already with Dawkin's book, which are as follows:

    1. Dawkins, on the first page of the Preface (the last paragraph) says, "Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers', no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it hurts'). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it . . ."

    2. His constant references to Thomas Jefferson as "a man of reason" and "one of the great thinkers and founding fathers of the United States."

    Now, for the best interest of logic and reason and intelligent discourse, I will refrain from discussing his view of God (mainly because I agree with what he says on page 37, "And I shall not be concerned at all with other religions such as Buddhism or Confucianism. Indeed, there is something to be said for treating these not as religions at all but as ethical systems or philosophies of life," making it crystal clear that he sees no problem whatsoever with my approach to life as it is very similar to Buddhist in both theory and practice). His view of God has been debated enough.

    What I will focus on in his hypocrisy and self-contradiction. I will do so by number below.

    1. First off, this argument is a fallacy. It is an appeal to emotion. He is asking human beings to imagine a world in which religion never existed, which is impossible since it was religion which helped human beings to evolve (mentally) in many ways. If one were to take religion out of the equation, many of the faculties which human beings possess would be instantly lost. Not to mention that the statues which the Taliban would be blowing up, would simply not exist. There would be no pyramids, there would be no sphinx, no Michaelangelo paintings, no grand statues to be destroyed. How much has come into existence, how much of our creativity would be lost to us, as human beings, had religion never existed? He conveniently ignores (or simply does not consider) this question. If one were to erase religion, no, the Taliban would not exist to blow up statues, but neither would the statues themselves, the great works of art, the amazing architecture around the world and countless other aspects of our lives which came into existence because of (not in spite of) religious views. One cannot keep the beautiful things that have come from religion if they throw out religion because of the abuse of religion. Corrupt minds will corrupt any institution, regardless of whether that institution be theistic or atheistic in nature.

    Also, he refers to the Indian Partition and that leads to number two.

    2. His constant praising of Thomas Jefferson is quite ignorant. He is promoting Jefferson's good ideals and using Jefferson to fight off the bad results of religions who repress and harm the lives of human beings around the world, all the while forgetting that it was Jefferson who brought about the Trail of Tears, who was responsible for the massacre of countless Native Americans. It was Jefferson who signed several "peace treaties" with the intention of breaking them a few weeks later. It was Jefferson who owned slaves and used religion as his right to do so. One cannot use Jefferson's quotes against forms of religion that he did not hold and change the context in which they were spoken, to speak against all forms of religion. Jefferson was a part of the very institution that Dawkins is claiming to fight against. That is hypocrisy.

    These are two flaws in Dawkin's book, which I would like to open for discussion.

    I agree with Dawkins that the religions of todays world are completely out of control and destructive. They are not praising life, they are not showing the beauty in existence or the glory in the beings that we call humans, they have been reduced to ONLY intolerance, money squandering and violence. Of course corrupt minds have always manipulated the group of religious people, using their religious beliefs as the excuse, to harm others . . . but there WAS ALWAYS a balance. The religions also provided enough beauty and unity, celebration and love to balance out the negative aspects. Now the positive side has been lost and all that remains is the negative side. So yes, I agree, there is a problem and that problem is religion. Religion is the problem. The goofy religious concepts of God (or the gods) has got to go. Science has explained the natural phenomenons which gave birth to these gods and goddesses. Science has explained them and so now those gods and goddesses are unnecessary. They served their purpose in human growth. They helped us to question our environment. But, like a pair of shoes that one wears at five and outgrows . . . they must be discarded, for they no longer fit.

    BUT, this is not the way to go about it. Contradicting yourself only opens up attack from those who wish to maintain their goofy beliefs. Why quote anybody from the past? Why do their views give validity to a scientist? If scientists make statements only on what can be observed and proven in the present, what possible need is there to persuade people by quoting famous names? The truth does not need a spokesperson. The truth can be proven at any time. The reliance on old men's quotes is a sign of persuasion and if you must persuade a person to accept your views, then you are not asking them to gain "knowledge" but simply to "believe" because persuasion only begets belief (if successful) and never knowledge. Knowledge is gained through experience.

    And, if you are indeed asking them to believe, then you are no less religious than the people you claim to be fighting.

    I repeat: This thread is not about God, it is about the contradictions . This thread is NOT about God. Do not come in here and discuss whether or not God exists or whether you think Dawkins was right or wrong on his view of God. That is not the concern of this thread.
    test
  2. Dawkin's is British. He comes from a school of thought that ties theology and religion and sociology all int he same breath. While one DOES influence the other, he is missing the interpolation of larger, harder to see frequencies.

    I can sit here and fire off hundreds of Humanist events in history that have resulted in the deaths of almost 1 billion people. Yet, people here would call me batshit insane for doing so.
    test
  3. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    1)

    Human creativity/minds will, and would have, created great beautiful art and structures regardless of whether prompted by religion or not. Your argument is flawed because you assume that as the subject matter was religion (e.g. Michaelangelo's stuff) that this was also the cause. It wasn't; human creativity and imagination was.

    2)

    There's no contradiction here because he's not saying Jefferson was an ideal person that we should all aim to act like, or that Jefferson didn't contradict himself. The quotes he uses by him are used for the same reason all quotes are used: they sum up or illustrate the point that is being made.

    For example, he also quoted John Lennon, who contradicted himself with every sentence. But the use of his "Imagine" quote is to lead into a discussion about a world with no religion. If you concentrate on the fact that Lennon was asking for world peace while still having a bitter war of words with Paul McCartney then you're missing the point.
    test
  4. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    If Michaelangelo's art had been natural and not religiously inspired, then you would have an argument. But, it wasn't. You can choose to believe that art would have come into existence without the influence of religion, but you can't be certain.

    Michaelangelo was inspired by religion.
    In fact, most great artists, musicians, architects, actors, dancers, etc from around the world have been greatly inspired by religion. To erase religion is to erase all of their contributions simultaneously.


    Yet he lashes out at theists who take part of Einstein's philosophy and leave the rest . . . all the while doing the same with Jefferson. He quotes Jefferson's statements on peace and integrity and then ignores the fact that Jefferson broke peace treaties and mass murdered Native Americans. That is hypocrisy at its finest.

    There is a difference between arguing with a former band member and traveling half way around the world to murder people. That was a silly ass comparison, and you know it.
    test
  5. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807

    Why should I follow a discourse when your opening remarks are an ad hominem about me? What ill informed statements did I ever make? Stop lying you've just now started reading dawkins. Which I still even seriously doubt. I'll just clue you in on something I don't even read dawkins nomore because I've already read most of his books. He had some interesting arguments which I use, but I don't follow anyone blindly. If you have read the book I can image you cussing the 1st chapter on einstein.

    As for the rest of your conversation... What is you're point? It seems to me you agree with dawkins that religions in the modern world need to end. That is one of the main points of his book THE GOD DELUSION.

    Constant reference to jefferson? He only made one in the begining and few in one cerntain chapter toward the end. You act like he littered the book with it. I know that is irrelvant, but I am a perfectionist dammit.

    Dawkins is right about the religiosity MEME causing religions to be among some of the most violent killing machine movements in history. If you read the book, you'd know Dawkins also points out Stalin killed many people and he was a communist. He never said seculars/atheists can't be murders. What his point was secular/atheists groups compared to religions groups have a less violent history.

    That is what he is saying azues.

    So three things...

    Number 1.) You're perpously misinforming.
    Number 2.) haven't read the book completely.
    Number 3.) Haven't heard dawkins speak on it when asked.

    However, Further reading has lead me to think much differently. Genes and their Memes equals conformity enforement no matter if its secular groups or religious groups. One mans freedom will always be another mans oppression. I understand it like this a group of genes following a certain meme will do whatever it takes (even murder) to make sure their meme survives. In contrast to me dawkins sees a difference, But where I do agree with dawkins is his stance on God.

    Dawkins had a very interesting counter to the RELIGIOUS ART.
    He labeled it FALLACY from ART.

    As riz pointed out as well.

    What dawkins is saying is, If religion wasn't the meme of that time something else would have inspired Michael angelo to paint Beatuiful master pieces. Because michaelangelo is the Creative mind. Religion was just the Subject. Michaelangelo could have depicted any subject and created such a master piece. The religion part was just the popular meme. If it wasn't religion it would of been something else. Dawkins goes into more detail about it but that is the just. Like he said azues PICTURE A WORLD WITHOUT RELIGION.

    If you want to paint angels, jesus, mary, go for it, it's whatever.
    But don't subject to me religion gave Michael angelo these innate talents
    as if without religion he never would have painted such master pieces.

    There are people who enjoy poems about God's nonexistences.
    There are people who enjoy master pieces with nothing religious about it.


    both example the pecking order.

    One is violent.
    Other is creative bickering.
    Both are conformity enforcers.
    different method, similar result.
    They both want to be numero uno in charge
    of resource shifting the memes direction.
    test
  6. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    Right, and the same is true for you: you can choose to believe it wouldn't have come into existence without religion, but you can't be certain. The difference? We know atheists have created great art, therefore it's not an essential ingredient.

    This doesn't address my point in any way.

    Because the subject matter is religion does not mean that the cause was religion. The only thing that causes art is an artists desire to create. Religion or anything else might influence what the art eventually comes out as, but the fact that art would still be created regardless is undeniable.

    Who has he lashed out at for using parts of Einstein's philosophy? I've seen him do it with people who use quantum theory, which is entirely different because they purposely misrepresent what it's about (something you are guilty of).

    Lennon wasn't only talking about murder or war in that song, and you know it. Again you miss the main point, because the fact that Lennon was someone who contradicted himself is undeniable.

    Which raises the question, what's your beef with contradiction? You, for example, contradict yourself on a daily bases, but rather than deal with this fact you create the idea that you're just playing different characters to observe people's reactions. Contradiction is different than hypocrisy, and we all contradict ourselves all the time... so why the fear?
    test
  7. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Ouch!

    I was thinking this. Then again who on this site doesn't.

    Not only that, but when questioned on it he also says "But We all contradict ourselves." As if it was ok for him to be contradictory.The hypocrisy of it all.

    Motherfucker has a Walt Whitman complex depending on his situation.
    test
  8. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    The difference is, the burden of proof is not on me. I can prove that all artistic endeavors were birthed from religious thought. I don't have to prove that those artistic endeavors would have developed without it. That is your claim and that is your burden to bear in this debate. I'm talking about the facts and you're talking about possibilities. Religion gave birth to art. That is a fact. Now, it is possible that art could have developed without religion, but that is a theory. That is a possibility, not a fact. We can't know for certain.

    And, we also don't know how quickly religions sped up our evolution. Creativity created religions and religions fueled creativity. Creativity created philosophies and philosophies fueled creativity. Philosophies created theories and theories created science. It is all interconnected. To remove religion is impossible (at this point in human evolution). It's not even necessary that it be removed, but merely corrected and cleansed of all its "wrong" views.

    That is a massive error that Atheist Scientists make. They see major flaws and think that everything must be thrown out. Yet, they don't treat science with such disdain. Every scientist (or philosopher) has been wrong about one thing or another, at one point or another. Does that mean we cast aside everything achieved by them? Of course not. That would be foolish.


    You're talking about possibilities that are actually not possible at all. Human creativity gave birth to religion and religion fueled that creativity. Every ancient group of people had religions, from Japan to China, India to Israel, Greece to Egypt and even in South American tribes and tribal islanders there were forms of religion. You can postulate all you like on the "possibilities" but it isn't possible. You know why? Because it didn't happen and the past is over. Possibilities lie only in the future, not in the past. What happened happened and it couldn't have happened any other way, on this earth. Perhaps it did on other planets, who knows . . . but it didn't here. We're not talking about alternate worlds, we're talking about ours.



    Have you read the book? Yes or No? If yes, it is in the first chapter. If no, then read the book and then carry this discussion. Don't waste both your time and mine.



    We all contradict ourselves as we grow and mature. Who we are at 20 isn't supposed to be who we are at 40, if it is we aren't living and maturing. But Dawkins is not dealing with a simple philosophy of peace being contradicted by an aggressive personality. Dawkins is "attacking" very simple people who have nothing to give them hope aside from their religious views and he wants to tear that little hope they have away from them and replace it with absolutely NOTHING.
    Everybody can't be a scientist and that's what Dawkins doesn't get. Some people cannot grasp science. Some people need religion. They need allegories and parables to understand things. That's why Yeshua (Jesus) said to the Disciples, "I have been speaking to you in parables because you have not been able to understand. But, now you are ready and so I will speak to you plainly."

    Everybody is not at the same place in life. Learning and growing, maturing and evolving (mentally) is a process. It isn't something you do by opening a book and reading a logical argument. Especially when you have experienced numerous things that cannot be explained by science and science will openly confess that they cannot explain it. Simple people will say, "Why should I follow science when science does not have an answer? Maybe my religion is wrong with their answer, but at least they provide one." Simple people do not understand the psychology of the mind, the way the body functions, DNA and all of the intricate aspects of who and what we are. You cannot hand somebody a car that has never driven and tell them to drive it. That's insane. Teach them how to drive and they will drive on their own. Teach them the truth and the false beliefs will fall away on their own. But don't beat the false beliefs out of people without giving them truth to replace it. Science cannot give that truth yet, so scientists need to keep their mouth shut until they can. They aren't even considering what a "godless" world would do to humanity at this point in time. They're just speaking out ignorantly without even a brief consideration of the chain reaction they will cause. These simple people lead simple lives and need simple beliefs because they do not want more.

    Dawkins is just tearing down. He isn't building anything up. That is a problem.

    My contradictions on RM were for my own personal benefit. Some of you got too involved in my statements and that's on you. I was doing it to observe reactions. You can elect to believe that or elect not to believe it, but in person you never get honest responses. On here people are less reserved and will say what they think because they aren't as intimidated by others, as they are reading words on a screen.

    There is no fear in me for anything. Not even contradiction. I'm just pointing out that Dawkins is arguing against religion by pointing out its contradictions and contradicting himself while doing it, thus pointing out that he is a hypocrite simultaneously while calling them hypocrites.

    [funny]
    test
  9. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Menaz - People have used every aspect of Dawkin's argument against God, before Dawkins was using it . . . for over 100 years. Dawkins is just making money off of it. Nothing more, nothing less. His memes and nemes books weren't putting food on the table. He's an opportunist. And you are dismissed from any further conversations with me. I'm no longer interested in anything you have to say. Your comments on Michelangelo are rambling horse shit. You don't actually study anything, you read the fuckin footnotes and I'm sick and tired of trying to get that through to you. Everybody knows it. You haven't tricked a single one of us. Stop pretending to be an intellectual.

    Have you read anything about Michelangelo? Do you know why he became an Artist? Don't respond to that question, it was rhetorical. I know that you don't. Just look it up sometime. Stop faking.

    You can't lead a revolution, you can't even pull your own head out of your ass.
    test
  10. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    And that's where your argument comes to a screeching halt. Creating religion was an act of art. Creating stories made up of allegory and metaphor is art. Therefore art undeniably came before religion because religion cannot be created by anything other than an artist.

    Further proof is the fact that atheists have since gone on to create art. Unless you're arguing that organised religion somehow created the ability for a human brain to have creativity - which would be the most ridiculous argument EVER - then your point can be dismissed. All ancient art is about religion because that's what dominated all ancient cultures. You still continue to miss the point that subject matter of art is not the cause of it.

    Yes, I've read it. That doesn't mean I remember every single sentence from it. Remember: you're reading it at this moment so it's all fresh in your mind.

    Yeah, you *really* didn't understand it first time round. Look, I definitely don't agree with everything Dawkins argues, but these few paragraphs show that you simply refused to take in what he's saying. He *does* offer alternatives, build things up and consider a Godless world. I mean, this whole discussion is because he started his book off with "Imagine a world without...".

    Don't contradict yourself [funny].

    The ONLY creative thing that ever came about from your character is this. You've set it up in such a way that you can never be wrong; you're simply just offering a different perspective than your own to see what reactions you'd get. Of course, everybody sees through it, but I admit it was slightly clever.
    test
  11. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    So would you consider a toilet bowl a work of "art"? It took creativity to conjure that concept up. The creative concept of one person brought forth religion. I'm not sure I would consider that creative idea "art" . . . but, the artwork which followed was entirely dependent upon that first person's idea.

    If I conjure up a theory that our Universe is a cell within a much larger body, which itself is nothing more than a cell within a much larger body, is that considered Art? If it is, then everything is art. A pooper scooper is a piece of Art, according to you.

    Nothing has come to a screeching halt. You were just under the delusion that it had.

    You are unable to comprehend that without subject matter there is not artistic ideas to be had. So yes, subject matter is the cause of art. The feelings derived from the subject matter ultimately give birth to the art itself.


    If you can't remember it, then don't say that he isn't saying what I said. Read it again and you will see that he is. Why argue what you do not know? You admit to not remembering what he said, yet you state what he did not say?


    I thought you couldn't remember what he said? What is he building, Riz?

    [funny]

    There's nothing to see through, I told you what I was doing and that is exactly what I was doing. Your belief (and perhaps others) that they have something to see through is rather ridiculous, especially from my side. But, you go ahead and think that if it pleases your ego.
    test
  12. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Religion began as an idea. An idea is not "art" . . .
    Sorry, chief. I know you thought you had me, but you didn't.
    You never have, regardless of what that other character on here believed.
    test
  13. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    Art is hard to define anyway. For me, it's something that combines your mind with your heart. However, allegory and metaphor are undeniably artistic techniques. As far as I'm aware, most, of not all, religions use these techniques.

    You can dance around the point as long as you want, but the music stopped a long time ago. Try to keep up.

    Do you know what a question mark represents? Apparently not, and yet you use them yourself. Most curious.

    "Who has he lashed out at for using parts of Einstein's philosophy?"

    When did I say he hasn't said it? I asked you a question. If you can't keep up you will be "dismissed from the conversation."

    Remembering someone's main argument = remembering every sentence of a book?

    No wonder you talk of delusions so much, because that's where you continually dwell.

    Continue reading the book, properly this time, and you'll find out. Do your own homework.
    test
  14. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    Look at his ego swell, folks.
    test
  15. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    this nigga rizzy just sonned yahuayoutube worse than anybody to my knowledge thus far. yahyah yyou stay taking L's
    test
  16. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Do you really believe that those metaphors and allegories were there at the original, first concept of God?

    Those aspects of religion developed later.

    The music didn't stop. You just can't hear it.
    And I am dancing around your points, because they aren't worth taking seriously.

    Right now your pride just won't let you admit you were shut down. It doesn't matter if Sodium supports you in this discussion or not. It doesn't even matter if you admit it or not. You're an intelligent man, you know when you've lost.

    Of course. Do you? The last sentence was structured as a statement, but should be read as a rhetorical question would be asked (picture the patronizing expression from me as I say it if it helps)

    Christians who claimed Einstein as a Theist. In several places. Re-read the book, you missed the entire first chapter.

    Nobody dismisses me from conversations. You can dismiss yourself, but I don't walk away until it's finished. Oh, and btw . . . I'm the one who started telling people that they are "dismissed." If you're going to try to talk me down, don't do it by imitating me. Otherwise you look like a schmuck.

    Of course not. Did I say that?

    [funny]

    Somebody is getting emotional. When the Ad Hominems come out, that's when you know that the ego has been touched.


    [funny]

    You're the one who can't remember what he says in it. Perhaps you need to re-read it? (There's that question mark again. Perhaps you'll understand its alternative usage here? Perhaps not? We'll see.)

    Not an ego, it's a fact. And if you're talking with me then talk with me. Stop trying to appeal to outside parties. That is a sign of weakness in character and level ground.
    test
  17. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Go away, child.
    test
  18. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    What a ad hominem fallacy on richard dawkins. I thought you weren't trying to PUSH anything on me? Hypocrite. LOL!

    Well, that had nothing to do with what I corrected you on.
    You should be thanking me. The sad part is, I don't even
    have his book no more and you've so called triple checked it.
    LMAO!

    The difference between you and I azues is I don't pretend.
    I like what I study so I talk on it. You just don't like what I
    have to say EVER. You can either get over it or you can shut the fuck up.
    There is only one try hard pusedou-intellectual here and that is you my friend. You think you're infallable because you keep talking. Truth be told not everyone in the audience who is paying attention will agree with you.



    Actually I think you're the one with his head up his ass.
    test
  19. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Hey Riz, did you notice how azues conversation switched to attacking you?

    That is what he does every time. Then the argument becomes you can't compare to him. You know that thing ego azues says he is trying to rite the internet board of.

    You have two choices...

    Ignore it.

    Or

    Call him names back.

    If you're feeling agressive attack him for everything he is worth.
    Hey azues hows the THREE KIDS you don't have?


    OUCH !

    Honestly, isn't it like repeating the samething over and over just using different words? No matter how many times either of us try to tell azues he just won't get it.
    test
  20. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Why is he a child? Because he disagrees with your poppycock?
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)