"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[gadfly]

---

To the theists, Dawkins will seem rude, probably because there is no nice way of saying "I think you're beliefs are ridiculous". Which is what he is actually saying, but the theist chooses to get offended by that. dunno why...

basin sensitive lang jud ang mga theists. basin ang ilang sense of meaning in life is totally dependent on their faith nga kun feel nila nga threatened ang ilang faith, mahadlok sila nga ma wa ang meaning sa ilang life. basin ing ana sila ka insecure deep within...or basin they take things too seriously and personally.

[bodie]

do all of you guys know what you are talking about or are you just trying to pass time?

dont reduce Dawkins to his insignificant non-professional hobbies, when you talk about Dawkins talk about 'memes' not about "God". In regards to the former, he is a PRO, in regards to the latter he is an AMATEUR.

To many people, faith is a very fundamental thing. Believers should have a clear understanding on what it is exactly they are believing in. If the basis of religion or the fundamentals of the belief are hard enough to understand from the viewpoint of the "Amateur" and needs a "Pro" of offer the religiously approved viewpoints... thats dangerous territory your going into.

Unlike the theology of today, the fundamentals of humanism are easy to understand. You dont need an advanced degree to grasp that.

[bodie]

To many people, faith is a very fundamental thing. Believers should have a clear understanding on what it is exactly they are believing in. If the basis of religion or the fundamentals of the belief are hard enough to understand from the viewpoint of the "Amateur" and needs a "Pro" of offer the religiously approved viewpoints... thats dangerous territory your going into.

Unlike the theology of today, the fundamentals of humanism are easy to understand. You dont need an advanced degree to grasp that.

@Child.. sir please don't troll here, this is a tavern for atheist only. Let us respect them and let them pat each other's back for sakes of satisfying their ego and affirmation of what they believe by praise and agreement from their fellows.

*gibitad kamo ni the_child*

tana manggawas ta

No... your more than welcome to stay. A discussion needs to have at least two sides, noh? No need to be condescending.

[mannyamador]

This is not explicitly about Dawkin's book itself. It's just a comment on related issues.

I think we have to remember that atheism is itself irrational. It denies the clear proof that the contingent universe needs a necessary being; and it dogmatically claims that God does not (and cannot) exist while failing to provide any proof for such a ridiculous position. Most atheistic "refutations" of the proofs for God's existence just end up getting mired in the denial of any rational explanation of anything. That attitude is quite contrary to the spirit of investigation that drives both science and theology.

[brownprose]

Dawkins is there to serve his purpose --- to use reason against fanaticism.

[15% Discount]

its dawkins delusion not God delusion..

[brownprose]

But between Dawkins' delusion and the fundie delusion, I choose Dawkins.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

hahahaha! nice one.

[mannyamador]

Dawkins is there to serve his purpose --- to use reason against fanaticism.

Interesting. I think that if he (Dawkins) sticks to his fanatical atheistic dogmatism, he fails in his "purpose".

Atheism is irrational and often a form of fanaticism to begin with. Theism, on the other hand, is rational. Belief in God can be shown to be quite reasonable.

[bodie]

This is not explicitly about Dawkin's book itself. It's just a comment on related issues.

I think we have to remember that atheism is itself irrational. It denies the clear proof that the contingent universe needs a necessary being; and it dogmatically claims that God does not (and cannot) exist while failing to provide any proof for such a ridiculous position. Most atheistic "refutations" of the proofs for God's existence just end up getting mired in the denial of any rational explanation of anything.

Wow manny... just wow.

Clear proof that the contingent universe needs a necessary being... can you explain that line? Because the way I see it (like Dawkin's or any other atheists position), it is the existence of god that needs to be proven.

I have not seen, heard, or felt the existence of god. The things around me can be explained by physical and natural phenomena. Its silly to go looking for and prove the existence of something that, evidently, does not exist. It is not dogma.

Dogma refers to matters of faith. I, for one, will gladly accept the existence of god if anyone can give me verifiable, reproducible proof that he exists. And no, the bible and life not not count. I hold (keep note manny) that the bible is a book written by man, and that it is possible for life to evolve into the form that we know today. Men more qualified that you have weighed in on this matter and have yet to draw a clean consensus.

That attitude is quite contrary to the spirit of investigation that drives both science and theology.

Huh? Your not making any sense.

Anyway, if a rational person reads Dawkins book with an open mind, I think he/she will find that the arguments put forward are quite credible.