Editorial Reviews. From Publishers Weekly. The antireligion wars started by Daniel Dennett Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like Kindle Store · Kindle eBooks · Religion & Spirituality. Read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins available from Rakuten Kobo. Sign up today and get $5 off your first purchase. A preeminent scientist—and the . Read online or Download The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins ▭▻▻▻ DOWNLOAD The God Delusion ebook Overview A preeminent.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Hindi|
|Genre:||Business & Career|
|ePub File Size:||15.64 MB|
|PDF File Size:||17.18 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Get this from a library! The God delusion. [Richard Dawkins] -- Argues that belief in God is irrational, and describes examples of religion's negative influences on. More than free eBooks to read or download in english for your computer, smartphone, ereader or tablet!, Richard Dawkins' God Delusion, Paweł Bloch. I also remember how strongly The God Delusion provokes you to think, Download a PDF of the Arabic version of The God Delusion here.
Not in United States? Choose your country's store to see books available for purchase. See if you have enough points for this item. Sign in. With rigor and wit, Dawkins examines God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign but still illogical Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being.
Preview this item Preview this item. The God delusion Author: Richard Dawkins Publisher: Houghton Mifflin Co. Argues that belief in God is irrational, and describes examples of religion's negative influences on society throughout the centuries, such as war, bigotry, child abuse, and violence.
Show all links. Allow this favorite library to be seen by others Keep this favorite library private. Find a copy in the library Finding libraries that hold this item Electronic books Controversial literature Additional Physical Format: Print version: Dawkins, Richard, God delusion.
Document, Internet resource Document Type: Richard Dawkins Find more information about: Richard Dawkins. Reviews User-contributed reviews Add a review and share your thoughts with other readers. Be the first. Add a review and share your thoughts with other readers. Similar Items Related Subjects: Religion -- Controversial literature.
Linked Data More info about Linked Data. Primary Entity http: Book , schema: CreativeWork , schema: This malformed URI has been treated as a string - 'http: Deserved respect ; Undeserved respect -- The God hypothesis. And hence to say I believe in Science as the ultimate answer when it has so far been unsuccessful in furnishing one is just to substitute the term "Science" for "God".
Of course I understand the value of people like Dawkins being there to be the vanguard for this change. And there is a real need for a spokesperson for the atheists when the other party has so many very vocal ones.
Find a copy online
But that does not mean that he should call for educated agnostics to brand themselves as atheists just to add religious fervor to the brand. All that is still no reason to call for making atheism an organized religion too.
There are too many paradoxes and unknowns in nature which science is more and more throwing up its hands in utter confusion towards. What if the universe truly is 'queerer than we can suppose' as J. Haldane puts it? Dawkins manages to explain most phenomena with natural selection but dismisses the larger conundrums and paradoxes with the great sweeping idea called the 'Anthropic principle'. The Anthropic principle might be a good tool to stall an argument but is no authentic scientific theory as he pretends it to be.
It would be the equivalent of saying that the clock is telling time correctly isn't it, so that explains its form and function and hence it needs no designer. I just paraphrased above the argument Dawkins uses to prove that atheism is absolutely valid.
Well, unless we resort to such rhetoric devices, it is not. And in the 'belief spectrum' ranging from radical theism to complete atheism, the only position we can take without resorting to faith is one of doubt - agnosticism. In conclusion, my opinion is that pure atheism is not possible under present scientific knowledge and that is why agnosticism is the only reasonable position to take - without slipping into blind belief in science after climbing out of blind belief in religion.
Nov 02, Alex Telander rated it it was amazing Shelves: Dawkins latest book is as brutal and honest as its title. Having an open mind is actually one of the New Ten Commandments Dawkins cites.
And yet religion — especially Christianity — remains stagnated in the ideas of men from thousands of years ago. As the book progresses, Dawkins seems to grow more impatient with religion and its whole-hearted certainty in a book and a god. He does an impressive job of going from chapter to chapter in defending different stances on science, always providing the evidence — a facet, he says, religion is lacking.
One point Dawkins makes that I really found fascinating was his evolutionary reason for the existence of religion, in that it was a component of our very early societies in helping to unite communities and keep them together as a whole. As human beings, we strive for companionship and the evidence speaks for itself when we look back to the time when there was a shift from the nomadic hunting and gathering societies to settling down in groups and communities, which started farming, large scale food production, and ultimately leading to technology, writing, law, art and so on.
After this, Dawkins tackles the question of morality and makes it a very big deal that everyone understand we keep this separate from religion and not think them one and the same. So he goes back into our ancestry to the days of Cro-Magnon, in the time when all humanity cared about was trying to survive. He posits that this was when we began to develop a sense of morality, because in being good to others, families and groups were formed, which helped improve survival. Another big issue with Dawkins is the labeling of children as belonging to the religion of the parents without any consent from them: If you liked this review, and would like to read more, go to BookBanter.
View all 7 comments. Nov 22, Manny rated it really liked it Shelves: I thought the very best point this book made came right at the beginning. Dawkins reports on surveys carried out in the US, where subjects received a description of an otherwise sympathetic political candidate, and were asked whether they would still vote for them if one extra feature were added. Would it still be OK if they were a woman? Well, we have hard evidence on that now!
Most people still say yes. Half the population says no! Considering tha I thought the very best point this book made came right at the beginning. Considering that many of the Founding Fathers had deep reservations about religion, this should sound warning bells.
If we going to claim we believe in religious tolerance, surely that should include tolerance for people who don't belong to any religion and think it's all nonsense?
Everyone bends over backwards to show understanding towards Christians, Muslims, Jews and what have you. Why not atheists? Dawkins just says what he honestly thinks, and doesn't see why he needs to be ashamed of it. Why should he? I didn't like this book as much as The Selfish Gene and The Ancestor's Tale , but that's more because they are positive books celebrating the amazing beauty of the new universe that science, and in particular evolutionary theory, have opened up to us; this is a negative one, attacking the ugly and constricted world that many self-described "religious" people still choose to live in.
Sometimes you need to be negative, though, and many deeply respected figures in the history of religion were negative about the prevailing orthodoxy.
Richard Dawkins to give away copies of The God Delusion in Islamic countries
If Martin Luther had been a nicer guy, he'd probably never have offended so many good Catholics with all those unpleasant theses, and I bet the money-changers weren't particularly thrilled when Jesus threw them out of the Temple. As far as I'm concerned, Dawkins is in pretty good company. I'd love to think that I'd started it, but of course Dawkins gets all the credit.
Still, I would like to expand on my initial review, and clarify my own position. I admire this book, and Dawkins's stand in general, because I think he is being decisive about pointing out a very serious problem in the world today.
Religion is in a state of crisis. Once upon a time, its job was both to explain to people how the world is, and also to tell them how to live in it. The first part of that mission has now been taken over by science. Dawkins is a scientist, and if you have scientific training it is impossible to take creationism and similar ideas seriously. It's very tiring even to discuss them.
If someone told you the Moon was made of cheese, you wouldn't want to endlessly go back and forth over whether or not you'd thought about the fact that it could be Mozzarella, or possibly Vacherin, and that maybe that would solve the technical problems.
The Moon obviously isn't made of any kind of cheese. Similar arguments apply to creationism. Religion has to get its act together and acknowledge that, on this particular ground, it has been supplanted by science. If this were the only problem religion was facing, it wouldn't be so bad. Mainstream religion is, however, also being hijacked by some very unpleasant characters. I've been brought up in the Christian tradition, so it's easiest for me to talk about Christianity.
I'm no theologian, but it is impossible for me to believe that most of the things you regularly hear from spokespeople of the Christian Right follow from the teachings of Jesus. For example, I once spent 30 unpleasant minutes leafing though Ann Coulter's Godless at a bookstore. This hysterical, bigoted stream of hatred has nothing to do with Christianity as it was conceived by its founder.
Indeed, in most respects it is diametrically opposed to it. The scary thing is that the book was a major bestseller. I don't know Islam at all, but every now and then I chat with a moderate Muslim. It sounds like they are even more concerned with what's being done in the name of Mohammed. So, it would be easy to conclude that religion is obsolete, and we should only rely on the teachings of science. I don't think that's correct. Science is only designed to tell us objective truths about the world; it doesn't have a conceptual apparatus for determining what we ought to do, as opposed to what is.
I've been working in science for over 25 years, and most years I write at least a couple of grant proposals. If I were asked to write a grant proposal for a project that would use scientific techniques to compare the value of moral frameworks, I don't see how I could even get started.
One of the key questions the funding authorities always ask is what objective metrics you will use. Where would these metrics come from? It's no use waving your hands and saying "philosophy". Which philosophy? For example, given that the Nazis were rather fond of him, I'm guessing that most people would prefer not to get Nietzche involved.
But what objective reasons do we have for excluding Nietzche, rather than other philosophers? I think most people who've read him would agree that Dawkins is a very moral person, and he isn't averse to moral principles that derive from traditional religion.
He doesn't think this conflicts with being an atheist. As he says, "Atheists for Jesus! My interpretation of all this is that it adds up to arguing for a massive reform in the way mainstream religion is organized; that's why I'm comparing him with other religious reformers like Martin Luther and Jesus.
He'd probably find this annoying. But, if I may criticize him for just a moment, what goes around comes around: View all 65 comments. Mar 24, Nick rated it did not like it Recommends it for: People with a critical mind. Ok, we get it. Religion is bad. Christianity is evil, Islam is maniacal, and all other religious zealots are out of their mind. I guess Dawkins is right I wish we still practiced 'exposing' infants i. Although there seems to be correlation between violence, homocide, and arrogance wit Ok, we get it.
Although there seems to be correlation between violence, homocide, and arrogance with organized religion, is a state without a god any better say, Maoist China? I think Dawkins has forgotten the most important axiom of science in his contentious ramblings and methodical deconstruction of ancient texts, history, and religion of which he is no expert Dawkins is only emboldening the religion of science at the exprense of the world's major belief systems.
I just hope humanity will resist a "brave new world" in which organized religion is replaced by other systems that devalue human life in the name of progression and knowledge. View all 32 comments. Apr 19, Richard rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: Everyone, but especially anyone religious. Richard Dawkins is not an easy read.
He never pulls a punch, and if any of the beliefs he is attacking in his book are yours then this is going to get your back up. Not for nothing was he passed over as a witness in the intelligent design trials in America. His appearance on the witness stand would probably have worked for the ID advocates as he pointed at every 'believer' in the room and berated them for their gullibility and simple mindedness.
The book tends to read at times like a diatribe which pummels you, and leaves you wanting to put the book down for ten minutes to get your breathe back. However, having said that, I think this book is just fantastic. At times its a comedy masterpiece as he quotes various religious bodies, allowing them to shoot themselves in the foot by highlighting their own inconsistencies or the avoiding of debate. For instance, The Catholic Encyclopedia dismissing Atheism: Nor can polytheism, however easily it may take hold of the popular imagination, ever satisfy the mind of the philosopher' Why not?
That isn't reasoning, beyond the simple 'I say it ain't so, so it ain't so'. At other times the book is a very clear explanation of the evolutionary pathway which may have led to humans becoming susceptible to such simple fairy stories. The second half of the book then concentrates on the downsides of religion and argues for all sensible, intelligent non-believers to make their voices heard, to help the scales fall from the eyes of those infected with faith.
What I particularly loved about this book is that I have been atheistic for many years more than half my life, and I'm almost forty now , but this is the first time I've read a really coherent, well argued text on what is wrong with religion all of them. The scientific approach to ripping down the pillars of faith probably won't achieve all that it should, faith being what it is. But it was an excellent read anyway.
View all 10 comments. Aug 02, James rated it it was ok Shelves: This book was a dramatic disappointment that did not live up to the "finally someone has proven religion is poppycock" hype it received. Dawkins fails utterly to tear down any meaningful experience of religion, instead he merely reinforces the petty grudges that some atheists have against religion, grudges that betray one's own lack of spiritual maturity and suggest a deeper ailment at work.
It's a shame. I saved up my energy to read the radical atheism espoused in Richard Dawkins' The GOD Delus This book was a dramatic disappointment that did not live up to the "finally someone has proven religion is poppycock" hype it received.
As a man of faith with a passionate interest in science, I understand -- and personally experience -- both sides of the God vs. Dawkins' book was such a smash hit that I anticipated it would contain some powerful new arguments that would lead me to days or even weeks worth of pondering. Sadly, it did not. The bulk of his attack centers on disproving the arguments that religious apologists have offered to justify God's existence. But those arguments were never very satisfying to believers, much less nonbelievers, so seeing them dismantled triggers a yawn instead of thoughtful introspection.
His arguments lack imagination and often fall into cheap mockery rather than intelligent reasoning. If God can be disproven rationally, why must he fall to such ad hominem rhetorical tactics? Methinks he doth mock too much. Most disappointing, Dawkins attempts to discredit the subjective experience of God by asserting that there are lots of crazy people out there, and the religious must simply be afflicted with a form of mental illness.
He does this in a single paragraph, even tossing in a sentence linking personal religious experience to epilepsy. This is not just lack of imagination, it's intellectual dishonesty. Either he is simply not smart enough to parse the difference between real spiritual experience and mental illness, or, more likely, he has chosen to lump all subjective experience of the divine in with insantiy as a cheap way to escape grappling with the amazing variety of spiritual experience average believers have on a regular basis.
Admittedly, there is a third alternative.
Maybe religious experience is simply outside of his capability to perceive it. Like a person born without the ability to taste, Dawkins is unable to relate to religious experiences because he can't savor them himself.
As a result, he can't understand why so many around him are enraptured by the delights of the present feast because sample as he might, he cannot taste a thing. That's why it's so easy for him to dismiss subjective experience -- because he doesn't have any. The book is worth the read just so you know what all the hubub is about and so you can understand that modern atheism as represented by Dawkins is a bland meal. Perhaps a little "salt of the earth" would help?
View all 21 comments. View all 6 comments. As an agnostic I can wholeheartedly promise you that this book is so tedious it will reduce you to tears. He debunks God as a concept and in the process completely misses the point of God. He then just carries on repeating himself through chapter after chapter after boring chapter. If there really was a god, he wouldn't allow people like this idiot to write mind numbing drivel and then market it with tacky gimmicks like the "Come all ye faithless" Christmas Card I got with mine I should have As an agnostic I can wholeheartedly promise you that this book is so tedious it will reduce you to tears.
I should have smelt a rat there and then. View all 16 comments. Jan 27, Karl-O added it Shelves: Regardless of your religious beliefs, I urge you to read this book. This book is so well known, it seems almost pointless to review it.
If you are a believer, you will not like it, though you're probably aware of that. Many of his points are f This book is so well known, it seems almost pointless to review it.
Many of his points are familiar e.
He does have a tendency to repeat himself and be annoyingly strident, but in general he makes a very good case. Dawkins knows the Bible well and relishes exposing its grisly genocide, gang rape, innocent sacrifices and contradictory aspects omniscience and omnipotence are contradictory — how can god have the power to change is his mind? There are two themes he keeps harking back to. The other hobby horse is the wickedness of "indoctrinating" children in a religion, which he even likens to actual abuse: He mentions that only about one in twelve British children break away from the religious beliefs of their parents as evidence of the power of such indoctrination.
Overall, Dawkins confirmed and clarified my unbelief, which is what I was wanting. He makes the obvious, but often overlooked point that the Bible was written a very long time ago, but long after the events it describes, in a very different culture and translated through multiple languages.
Chinese Whispers. Also, some of the writers probably had motives of which we are unaware but which are pertinent to interpreting what they wrote. On p he compares the different nativity accounts to show how contradictory they are both with each other and known historical facts.
If the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic, where does original sin come from? And why was Jesus painfully and humiliatingly killed for a symbolic sin? Joshua in Jericho. Which life is sacred? But if you pick and choose only the nice bits, who decides which to follow and which to ignore?
Morality comes from elsewhere. We can still enjoy the Bible as literary and cultural heritage in the same way as we enjoy the Greek myths and Chaucer. Surely Roman Catholicism is polytheistic? Religion is expensive: Human survival is complex and our babies are born very immature.
Also, children are inherently dualist mind and body are separate, so the mind can be a disembodied spirit and teleological inferring purpose in everything: Religious beliefs are collective memes, that evolve in context with each other, echoing human psychology dualism and teleology , further tweaked by priests. Each rewrote their own history to fit events. But for good people to do evil things it takes religion. He quotes an experiment where some patients were prayed for and some not and of the former, some were told.
The ones who knew they were being prayed for fared slightly worse than the others. In general, religious belief is correlated with lower education, lower IQ and less interest in science. We look for patterns: Temporal lobe epilepsy, and direct stimulation of the temporal lobes, can induce visions very similar to those described by some religious people.
If we accept arguments from personal incredulity, then we should accept Derren Brown actually has supernatural powers, even though he denies it.
Science can be proved or disproved, debated and, if necessary, revised; scientists are prepared to change their minds. Believers are unquestioning and no amount of evidence will change their minds. But in fact, if the odds are 1 billion to 1 against, that still means there should be life on 1 billion planets.
The reason the Earth is perfect for us is that we have evolved here, to our environmental niche. Evolution does not say that things happen randomly, by chance, but rather, by natural selection. Irreducible complexity does exist, but only if there are interim stages that are no longer there, e. Young Earth creationists believe the universe began after the domestication of the dog! This is a scale error equivalent to saying New York to San Francisco is 7.
Such an approach accepts ignorance, rather than driving scientific progress. Does the fact that suffering including the holocaust provides opportunity for bravery, sympathy and generosity make it OK from a loving god? Omniscience and omnipotence are contradictory — how can god have the power to change is his mind? It was especially important in small kinship groups and is not diminished by our knowledge of that, just as our desire for sex is not diminished by contraception.
If we need the threat of eternal damnation or promise of heaven to be good, then we are without morals and only worthy of the fires.
Morality shifts externally and religions catch up, so again, morality is not coming from religion. We think of Hitler as worse than Caligula or Genghis Khan, but was he, or is it just that he was more recent and we have film footage? Disbelief in god should fall into this category because it is conceivable that it could be proved and even if not, you can consider probability.
View all 76 comments. I didn't really like his The Selfish Gene , mostly because I think it tries to explain things on the wrong scale. I quite like his meme metaphor, but think people like Dennett take it too far by forgetting it is a metaphor. The Blind Watchmaker has that long and dull bit at the end about computer program insects that is just too painful to read.
And then there is the ongoing fight between him and Stephen J Gould. I always loved Gould's writing and as shallow as this sounds would have picked him over Dawkins for that alone. But Gould's last book in which he claimed science and religion are complementary was a sad and unforgivable mistake by a truly great man. Dawkins is never likely to make that same mistake. I was brought up an atheist and so am fascinated that people can actually believe in religion. It literally shocks me when people say they believe in God or that they are religious.
Not so much if I think the people are basically stupid, but much more so if I think they seem relatively intelligent. For a long time I used to believe that when people said they believed I thought they were being disingenuous. It was only after reading the Bible and talking to 'Christians' that I realised that many people don't believe in religion at all - well, not in Australia at least. People who consider themselves Christian often know virtually nothing of the New Testiment and nothing at all of the Old.
People just assume that the Bible is a book of moral instruction. That is what I thought it was going to be when I started reading it. I was shocked to find that it was anything but. Dawkins's book is a good introduction to some of the less well known and much less morally instructional stories in the Bible - and for this alone it serves a worthy purpose. I was talking to a friend yesterday about an article in the paper about global warming and what needs to happen if we are to save the planet.
He said, "Let's just hope the climate sceptics are right, because the US believes Jesus is coming back to fix things up - so they won't do anything about climate change.
Religion is a danger to our existence we can no longer afford. There is part of me that understands that religion offers lots of comfort to lots of people in the world and I never feel quite right taking that comfort away from people - particularly when I've nothing to offer in return. It feels almost like telling a five year old there is no Santa. But at other times I feel much as Dawkins does - that there is simply too much at stake to leave the fate of the world in the hands of people who believe in sky gods who are coming to fix things.
God is Not Great is probably a better book - but since this one explains evolutionary biology too and in terms, surely, even a creationist can understand, I would have to recommend it.
The more frightened I become about the future we will be leaving our children, the more opposed to religion I become. View all 86 comments.
View all 27 comments. Mar 31, Lia rated it did not like it Recommends it for: I feel the need to insert a negative review from a believer of evolution and a harsh critic of organized religion. His basic assertion that faith and science are inextricably entangled is sound. However, he leaps off this logical diving board and into a mess of false simplifications about the nature of faith, the logic of science, and the lives of atheists vs.
If you want to figure out if evolution is real, read some biology books and take a walk outside. This trash is only for people I feel the need to insert a negative review from a believer of evolution and a harsh critic of organized religion. This trash is only for people who require a heightened sense of superiority as reward for being an atheist.
View all 4 comments. View all 12 comments. With friends like Richard Dawkins, who needs enemies? Okay, i said it. Whew, I feel better. He's just so annoying, even when you agree with him. Okay, well, so, some time ago I watched Richard's two documentaries "The Enemies of Reason" and "The Root of all Evil" so I should get round to this book at some point, but really, it's so hard to make any kind of sense of this debate.
Right now, I kind of know what the Bible means when it says in Psalms The fool hath said in his heart that there is no God It's because of the giant ineluctible fact that there IS an IS - that things exist rather than not exist.
I am here rather than not here. And so are you! Deny that if you can! That's a rather large elephant in the room of all atheists.
Try and shove that one out of the door. Existence rather than non-existence. The God delusionals will say ah, you see, this guy PB, he's one of us now. Some of them might then be saying "But that's not a good thing, though, is it? Now, excuse me, i have to take a phone call. Pardon me Oh, it was a scientist saying that what with the Bean Bag Collider they now have in Switzerland and their up to the minute research into the first part of the first part of the millionth subdivision of the first nanosecond after the Big Bang, they are in the happy position of being able to confirm that within two shakes of a lamb's tail that's a scientific term they will KNOW how the whole thing went down.
They saw - with their own eyes - the Hugo Boss particle the other day. So now they know. I told her, keep up the good work. I want to know how it happens that we're all here and not not here.
But when the scientists do explain how everything began, it's going to be just as mystical for your average punter as Genesis chapter 1 verses But Genesis will win out on poetry.
And because of Peter Gabriel. So we'll be none the wiser. Except some clever-clogs 15 year old somewhere who reads it all in Nature or New International Geekery and says oh, is that all it takes to create a universe?
And he'll make another one right there in his bathtub. How much more do they reject - physics? Or is science perfectly okay until it mentions anything in the Bible? Where is the examination of scientific evidence leading to its rebuttal and rejection by the fundies? You know, like they used to believe the fossils were put there by God to test the faith of Christians I mean, I guess they must also reject astronomy, with its concepts of light years and galaxies and what-all, because it's obvious that if you have a galaxy that's over light years away the universe is older than years.
So that has to go. I did see a documentary about religion presented by Ann Widdecombe in which she pretended to be offended by a sketch from that show about an Indian family receiving Holy Communion for the first time. The conceit was that these foreigners misunderstood the meaning of the Eucharist to such a degree they tried to improve the experience by sprinkling flavorsome subcontinental spices onto the host cracker to make it taste nicer.
Totes fake. If the dreadful harridan had been raised Catholic it might have been more convincing. The sketch has apparently never been repeated on the BBC.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
Mock Them. Ridicule Them. In Public. With Contempt. Come on. I refuse to believe that someone so steeped in the culture of that city could be unfamiliar with this famous Irish pronoun phrase. Close your eyes. Block your ears. Stamp your feet. Rebecca Hamilton: Christian destroys 10 commandments monument, Rebecca Hamilton finds a way to cry persecution.
The God Delusion
I thought Patheos was the personal blog of that guy whose articles are sometimes linked to here and whose name escapes me. Note to self: I too love British radio comedy. Eccles and Bluebottle have been wonderful companions. More of Katy would help. The Indian people are much more tolerant of English thugs. The Turks would neither do it or tolerate it, as they showed in the Tottenham riots when they took to the streets to stop the looting.
But there is a more serious concern though, regarding the difficulty of translating a text: It was indeed the claims that were the issue. Not his best construction of the point though and fallen upon gleefully by those seeking a defence and those promoting a good thumping.
Metaphorically stringing something unfortunate around anothers neck that they may not remove. The epithet rottweiler for example. Selling human rights in western law against sharia law, that is the difference, IMHO. There is a lot to change here and change is frightening to our species. We must employ all sorts of human sciences and just saying there are your human rights, go gettem, is not the scientific way.
This is not just a fight against oppressors. It is not that simple. The oppressors are as afraid and the same people. His alleged stridency was discussed at length here a while ago on the thread Richard Dawkins to Speak in Belfast. Again, none of these is automatically a bad thing to have as a character trait. Shrinking violets do not make headlines or recruit others to the cause of politicized atheism. The title of The God Delusion was deliberately provocative: You have a discipline in which you are very distinguished.
You see your discipline being attacked and defamed and attempts made to drive it out. Stridency is the least you should muster. A lower-in-fat racism substitute also available as a spray, if you like.
Hemant Mehta. He posts his stuff on Patheos, which is why I though it was his personal blog. See my response to Marktony for what I think about the Rottweiller and strident epithets. I imagine that I am so brave for being a reasonably outspoken nonbeliever and yet this pales in comparison. It is also cool that Richard is fine with people downloading a free version of hos book.
Are U sure? Maybe the sheik bought the lot for a public bonfire? Hallelujah indeed. He addresses the choice of title in the preface including:. The first part captures religious faith perfectly.
As to whether it is a symptom of a psychiatric disorder, I am inclined to follow Robert M. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion. OK, so his strident uncompromising approach has been a success. But my initial reply was in response to your:. Here is what he said:. So when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is: Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?
Ridicule them! In public! Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt.
Your man Sam Harris was more subtle in his mockery of Rabbi Wolpe here. Should it? It seems pretty obvious really. Islam is not a race, Islam is not a gender. If Richard has had to repeatedly make that point, it is probably because he is repeatedly being accused of racism when he criticises Islam. The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: Since Islamic scripture includes parts of the OT, does that also make him racist against Islam?
People who think they have a personal relationship with the Almighty may indeed be delusional. There are other reasons why someone might make such a claim. Religion can give people a sense of identity within a family group or community at large, a state of affairs which would be jeopardized if everyone were candid about what they actually believe.
Do you think the wheat can be separated from all the poisonous chaff? That is the part I agree with. Richard may be all kinds of clever when it comes to knowing about biology and which way up an elephant is meant to go, but as a recruiting officer his skills leave much to be desired. New Atheism has a sheen of unpleasant superiority about it; the idea that its members should call themselves Brights, which I believe even Christopher Hitchens considered a terrible idea, is one example of this mindset.
Link copied and bookmarked. Thank you. Not this again. This has been argued into the ground. Okay, in a nutshell: Richard says something one can convert in or out of cannot be considered a race, case closed. In case you were wondering, the other part of the argument concerns Islamic rules about apostasy. How has UCL come to this: The content of their character, and all that. Because Dawkins has gone from criticising the religion itself to criticising Muslims, as a vast bloc.
For instance, would Dawkins have tweeted another fact, which is that Trinity also has twice as many Nobel prizes as all black people put together? Yet he is willing to make the equivalent inference about Muslims, without further evidence. Richard is happy to identify as a cultural Christian. Does this mean a white westerner should not be allowed to express disapproval of acts committed in the name of Islam?
Certainly not, although that is what Dawkins, Harris, Maher etc would have you believe is the liberal position: Nice try, boys, but: All we ask is that you do so in a rational way and without resorting to the kind of reasoning that a tattooed EDL remember them? Does it really? The Green Party requires no such stipulation on its membership form because xenophobes tend not to gravitate toward it.
I for one do not know who the hell these Muslims think they are. A Jewish neighbor of mine sometimes tosses his garbage in with my carefully sorted recyclables.
Who the hell do these Jews think they are? Which is where we came in. Quite the reverse in fact. You can be as snarky as you like about the idiocy of religious beliefs if every member of your intimate circle is as atheist as you. To dismiss the phenomenon of religion and faith as mere hallucinatory or illusionary undercuts something much deeper in the human psyche and universal, if not, evolutionary experience i. Konrad Lorenz hinted at this in his brilliant observations on human nature.
One can just as easily assign this basic human capacity to religion, ritual, mythology and faith. In essence, and what is almost certainly irrefutable, humans make shit up. And in that marvelous world of the imagination they find inspiration to dance, experience awe, play music, paint on walls and canvasses, build magnificent structures and cathedrals, come together, as well as unleash unspeakable atrocities upon the world.
While the latter behaviors should never be forgotten, diminished or revised, neither should the former. So, where does that leave us? Once we expose the cruelties and excesses of a particular belief system, we are still left with the essential human attribute to imagine, create and manifest those marvelous, terrible, and wondrous things into our beings, families, community and life experience.
Why do so many religions have a dress code, tell you how much hair you should grow on your face, dictate the foods you will eats, and build mini fairy tale kingdoms: Psychiatry a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc: Psychiatry psychiatry a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason. No, it means Judaism is not a race and criticising Judaism is not racism. Just as criticising Israel is not racism. Interestingly but not surprisingly, DNA studies have found a large genetic overlap between Jews and Muslim Palestinians.
I think Richard is well aware that there are people who criticise Islam who have ulterior racist, xenophobic motives. Richard Dawkins explains to the reader why he had chosen the title of the book TGD. Now why does name of Galileo spring to mind? Luckily for us, Galileo had the good sense to recant, and his ideas spread. I am losing count of the number of public apologies Richard, yer man , has made for his various transgressions.
My quotes. Fleabytes Report abuse. Tuh, the church and gays, eh. Was Galileo Galilei known for presenting his ideas in a particularly sarcastic way? Cosa sei, un idiota? The greatest advancement of Arabic science not islamic science since … well arabic science started.
Crossword puzzles are boring? We are not approaching final debate night in the Middle East, one last, best approach is not necessary. Muslim, a follower of the religion of Islam. There is no such thing as an atheist Muslim. Your claim seems to imply criticizing Muslims, is racist to Arabs; however there are plenty of non-Arab Muslims.
My, admittedly limited, understanding of why Galileo was brought before the Inquisition was partly because of his somewhat disrespectful attitude towards his Holiness and the RCC. He was a great scientist and he knew that he had made great breakthroughs, but he realised that discretion was the better part of valour. If the idea could be seeded that, as with the other two branches of Abrahamism, cultural Islam was a thing, I really think it might make a difference for the better.
Makes you proud. I know that. There are Ethiopian Jews too. Thanks, that is a long article. I see you got a mention. Religious apologists do seem to believe that proclaiming they used be atheists is a great opener.
I am delighted that there is now an Arabic version of this book. I spoke to Prof Dawkins, several years ago, at a book signing for The God Delusion in London, and asked him if he would allow me to translate his book into Arabic. His reply was — I will not allow you to do that for your own safety.
Well done to Bassam Al-Baghdadi for going ahead regardless of the consequences. The message HAD to go out! Every Christian, Jew and Muslim I have ever met, is wiser, more powerful and morally superior to the god they worship.
That might be a good attitude to take when discussing religion with believers, what religious individual could ever take that as an insult? Or to co-opt a religious saying ….. For me the God Delusion was not particularly memorable. It just seemed to state the obvious. Yet I have seen so many statements from religious people for whom it was a major awakening.
I guess the simplicity and common sense of it was able to sneak past defences. I think religious people distrust anyone who seems to have a hidden agenda. They discount all arguments, even if they seem persuasive. Richard is so direct even the religious people trust him. When I abandoned the Islamic faith, it was not just the beliefs that I left behind, but also the traditions, the festivities, the culture, and the mentalities of the people I knew. I even stopped using Standard Arabic for a few years.
I felt like an idiot, especially when I realized, around the age of 20, that I was so good at learning languages, a potential that I wasted during my youthful years, when I had a lot of free time, a clearer mind, and a stronger desire to learn, unscarred by fear of humiliation, prejudice, or cynicism.
Now, even though I reached a kind of a truce with the Arabic language, my overall sentiment is still the same. There is nothing significant in my background culture that I find remotely interesting or worth keeping or being proud of. I want nothing to do with that religion, and if I could I would erase every trace of my passage in my native country. Many are attached to their cultures, many would want to help develop their countries; but most regard Islam with contempt and derision, and would rather excise its cancerous presence from their societies altogether.
Once you leave Islam, you become aware of its hatred and hostility towards non-Muslims, and there is no way we will turn the other cheek or negotiate with the threats of violence and killing directed at us. I saw it in Turkey in Turkish! Also met a schoolteacher who confided his atheism; so hope is spreading through the Islamic world despite the efforts of the religious authorities. In- easily too easily but out- only at risk of death… Report abuse.
Beautifully expressed. So good to hear about such experiences. I hope Katey reads your post… she is too quick to decry criticism of Islam, so your words should have considerable impact with her.
- FINAL FANTASY AND PHILOSOPHY EBOOK DOWNLOAD
- ARENDSOOG EPUB DOWNLOAD
- DOWNLOAD THE ART OF WAR EBOOK
- TANGLE OF NEED NALINI SINGH EPUB DOWNLOAD
- SIDNEY SHELDON RAGE OF ANGELS FREE EBOOK DOWNLOAD
- DOWNLOAD THE SCORPIO RACES EPUB
- TWILIGHT REIMAGINED EPUB FREE DOWNLOAD
- FACHKUNDE ELEKTROTECHNIK EBOOK DOWNLOAD