Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Has anyone else read this book? I'm about halfway through, and I must say this Dawkins bloke is a fantastic bore, although I quite like some of the science parts.

I've browsed through it, it's decent. When you come to the "angry letters" part, tell me what you think, IIRC it's around the 200s in the hardcover.

I read some of it a few years ago. The guy is one hard core militant atheist/secularist/asshole! It's just preaching to the converted. If atheists had an organized religion, Dawkins would likely be required reading

He's an excellent scientist. He's not a great philosopher. Try reading "the selfish gene" instead. I don't like the god delusion because it's somewhat rabid and it's clearly preaching to the converted.

GamePlayer wrote:If atheists had an organized religion, Dawkins would likely be required reading

God forbid! (Oops, did I say that?)

I read it a while ago. I got really bored when he blew his philosophical load at the end of chapter 3, then he just seemed angry with people he thought were too stupid to just agree with him. He's mostly responding to St. Augutine with those arguments, and when he just lets Buddism off the hook because "it's not a religion" I think he WAY overgeneralized easten philosophy.

Also, one personal point of contention: he said C. S. Lewis should have known better, but his examples of Lewis' thought weren't Lewis' they were G. K. Chesterton's.

Not Dawkin's best effort, more propaganda than science or philosophy.

I actually quite liked it. Having been raised as a born again christian it was really quite a relief to see a book like this. I escaped the church influence less than 10 years ago so reading Dawkins has actually been refreshing for me.

What I liked about the book most were some of the quotes from others and his analogies. They really do help to keep things in perspective for people who lived and breathed religion like I did.

Nekhrun wrote:I actually quite liked it. Having been raised as a born again christian it was really quite a relief to see a book like this. ...

Not trying to be a prick here but how can you be raised as a Born Again Christian. I always thought it is a "Returning to the fold" term applicable to one that has wandered from the path of righteousness.

inhuien wrote:

Nekhrun wrote:I actually quite liked it. Having been raised as a born again christian it was really quite a relief to see a book like this. ...

Not trying to be a prick here but how can you be raised as a Born Again Christian. I always thought it is a "Returning to the fold" term applicable to one that has wandered from the path of righteousness.

If that applies to my mother then I am raised in that environment.

I got tired of Dawkins quickly watching him debate theists on you-tube. He is a brilliant evolutionary biologist, but he knows almost ZERO about the three big Abrahamic religions. I know almost nothing and I know that a lot of what he spouts in his debates (and his book) is nonsense. If you want to debate religious people, fine - but you've got to do better than to just repeat over and over that the bible promotes genocide (which it does but that's not the point).

If you want to read/listen to atheists who actually make an impact I'd highly recommend Dan Dennet and Sam Harris. Both do a much better job than Dawkins.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:the bible promotes genocide (which it does but that's not the point).

I thought that point was to illustrate the wider point that law and morality are not based in religion?

I quite liked the book (audiobook actually - mostly read by him) - I didn't really like the man as much, but he does have an answer all the points I've ever heard raised by theists.

Will have check out those others though.

inhuien wrote:

Nekhrun wrote:I actually quite liked it. Having been raised as a born again christian it was really quite a relief to see a book like this. ...

Not trying to be a prick here but how can you be raised as a Born Again Christian. I always thought it is a "Returning to the fold" term applicable to one that has wandered from the path of righteousness.

"Born again Christian" means that the person has been "saved". You are reborn as a Christian after accepting Jesus as your savior.. something like that. It's something evangelicals say.

I was born correctly the first time... except that I was a c-section baby. My mom says that's why I used to sneak out the doggy door at night when I was a teenager.

Sure you weren't trying to sneak in?

Erm, not your mother's, of course!

DuneFishUK wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:the bible promotes genocide (which it does but that's not the point).

I thought that point was to illustrate the wider point that law and morality are not based in religion?

I quite liked the book (audiobook actually - mostly read by him) - I didn't really like the man as much, but he does have an answer all the points I've ever heard raised by theists.

Will have check out those others though.

Yes, but Dawkins tends to over-simplify the passages he's criticising, I'd have to watch his videos again, but he says lots of things about Christianity that are flat out miss-interpreted.

I just prefer the aproach of Harris and Dennet, they really exemplify what a positive atheist is. They argue without being disrepectful, while maintaining the firm position that there is no god, and anyone who believes so is wrong. They also focus more on the positive side of atheism rather than just relying on pointing out the negative side of religion (though they don't shy from this when it comes up). I think they are much more effective.

They argue without being disrepectful, while maintaining the firm position that there is no god, and anyone who believes so is wrong.

This at least I can respect. Being called deluded isn't exactly a winning argument...

SadisticCynic wrote:

They argue without being disrepectful, while maintaining the firm position that there is no god, and anyone who believes so is wrong.

This at least I can respect. Being called deluded isn't exactly a winning argument...

True, but it is what it is. I don’t think people on either side of the argument should censor themselves to the point of watering down their beliefs.

One of my #1 complaints about inter-faith and faith-atheist debates is when people take the whole "respecting other people's beliefs" too far. The fact of the matter is that most people, (aside from some agnostics, religious pluralists, and people from religions that don't exclude other religions from being true) simply do not in truth respect each other’s beliefs, and while I believe we should all strive to respect each other, we should also be honest when we truly don’t.

What do we mean by respect anyways? I think most people actually mean being respect”ful” rather than actually having respect. I doubt very much that many religious people respect atheists, most will eventually admit that they think atheism is an arrogant delusion, and this is true of most atheists’ opinions towards religious people. I can be respectful, but this is very different from respecting IMO. I do think that believing in a god is delusional, and I’m sure most religious people think that I am delusional. I'm not going to insult someone's intelligence by lying to them and saying that I think it's fine to believe in a god. That said - I don’t think that atheists should be purposefully antagonizing religious people, that just makes things worse, and accomplishes nothing. I think real conversation can only take place when both sides of this issue are respectful, while admitting the truth that they do actually lack some respect for the other side.

I think it’s more respectful for me to treat religious people like adults who can handle the truth, rather than sugar coating things. That would be a real insult, IMO. Also, just because I don't have much respect for a person's religious beliefs doesn't mean that I don't still respect them as a human being.

Hope that made sense.

Freakzilla wrote:I was a c-section baby.

You, too? Kewl! Let's start a new clique! Who else is in?

Tleszer wrote:Sure you weren't trying to sneak in?

Erm, not your mother's, of course!

BONUS points for raising the incest issue!

Now who did Cain marry again?

Makes a lot of sense, I like it.

SandChigger wrote:

Tleszer wrote:Sure you weren't trying to sneak in?

Erm, not your mother's, of course!

BONUS points for raising the incest issue!

Now who did Cain marry again?

Sweet. Thanks, Chig!

Even though the points don't matter, I think I'll use them to buy a vowel. I think... the letter "O" will do just nicely.

I believe I've read this book. Can't say I recognize the cover, but what's entailed inside sounds familiar.

I enjoyed it, but found a lot of the reasoning to be circular and using Hitchhiker's logic to disprove Judeo-Christian-Islamic god, though I was interested in the historical approach to the Bible. Which really isn't a big deal, coming from a writer that likes to treat most literature on somewhat of a metaphorical level.

Interesting fact: I read the book at my aunt's, whom is a diehard fire-and-brimstone Christian that comes from a church denouncing alcohol in all forms, proclaiming that Jesus and other Biblical figures drank "grape juice", and has a pastor that blatantly quotes from his own head and refuses to be shown correct verses in his head. My aunt keeps such books as jokes for her Christian buddies, and even gave me a book on evolution for "a laugh". (I played along)

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

SadisticCynic wrote:

They argue without being disrepectful, while maintaining the firm position that there is no god, and anyone who believes so is wrong.

This at least I can respect. Being called deluded isn't exactly a winning argument...

True, but it is what it is. I don’t think people on either side of the argument should censor themselves to the point of watering down their beliefs.

One of my #1 complaints about inter-faith and faith-atheist debates is when people take the whole "respecting other people's beliefs" too far. The fact of the matter is that most people, (aside from some agnostics, religious pluralists, and people from religions that don't exclude other religions from being true) simply do not in truth respect each other’s beliefs, and while I believe we should all strive to respect each other, we should also be honest when we truly don’t.

What do we mean by respect anyways? I think most people actually mean being respect”ful” rather than actually having respect. I doubt very much that many religious people respect atheists, most will eventually admit that they think atheism is an arrogant delusion, and this is true of most atheists’ opinions towards religious people. I can be respectful, but this is very different from respecting IMO. I do think that believing in a god is delusional, and I’m sure most religious people think that I am delusional. I'm not going to insult someone's intelligence by lying to them and saying that I think it's fine to believe in a god. That said - I don’t think that atheists should be purposefully antagonizing religious people, that just makes things worse, and accomplishes nothing. I think real conversation can only take place when both sides of this issue are respectful, while admitting the truth that they do actually lack some respect for the other side.

I think it’s more respectful for me to treat religious people like adults who can handle the truth, rather than sugar coating things. That would be a real insult, IMO. Also, just because I don't have much respect for a person's religious beliefs doesn't mean that I don't still respect them as a human being.

Hope that made sense.

I like the way you said that Thing. And it made good sense to me.

Of course there are somethings in which we disagree on; however, it seems like we do agree on the still respect the person as a human being w/o having to 'respect' their belief.

I've grown to learn that if you are true to your belief and true to yourself, then people are more likely to respect you even if they disagree with you. Will everyone do that? Of course not. But we should each try our best to set the example of respecting our fellow human being. IMHO

And thank you all who have shown me such much respect and acceptance here at Jac.

And yeah....each of you are in my prayers. I know many do not share my belief but I hope you will understand why I pray for my online friends.

Take care and have a nice day.

Eyes High wrote:And yeah....each of you are in my prayers. I know many do not share my belief but I hope you will understand why I pray for my online friends.

I think the only time I've ever disapproved of someone praying for me was when they told me they prayed that I'd "see the light" and convert to christianity. Every time other than that, I've just thought it was something nice, along the lines of "you're in my thoughts". So I hope other people don't have any problem with you praying for the,

IMO it's pointless to argue with people who quote The Bible (or whatever "holy book") as a factual reference. It's a lost cause at that point.

I downloaded a really (really) nice audio version of the bible to listen to at work.

I do still want to finish it... but I couldn't get past Numbers - it's fucking wierd and really quite boring