The God Delusion

[_Jason Bourne]

So, yesterday I bought this book in iTunes. It was an odd thing. I looked it up, read the summary, I have looked at this book at the book stores. But I have been reluctant to buy such a book. I feel like I would, and now am, maybe taking a step off a precipice that I do not want to take. Or maybe I fear it. I have read articles and listened to podcasts by atheists that defend or promote their positions. But I have never read a book along these lines and I understand Dawkins is pretty strident.

Ah well. I think it only fair. I have taken a critical look at Mormonism. I have taken a critical look at Christianity. Both have some major problems, I think, in their founding claims. But I have not rejected either totally. I am about to go over to the dark side by reading such a book?

Is it odd that I seem so worried about this? I feel odd and strange about this.

[Guest]

So, yesterday I bought this book in iTunes. It was an odd thing. I looked it up, read the summary, I have looked at this book at the book stores. But I have been reluctant to buy such a book. I feel like I would, and now am, maybe taking a step off a precipice that I do not want to take. Or maybe I fear it. I have read articles and listened to podcasts by atheists that defend or promote their positions. But I have never read a book along these lines and I understand Dawkings is pretty strident.

Ah well. I think it only fair. I have taken a critical look at Mormonism. I have taken a critical look at Christianity. Both have some major problems, I think, in their founding claims. But I have not rejected either totally. I am about to go over to the dark side by reading such a book?

Is it odd that I seem so worried about this? I feel odd and strange about this.

I've read it. It's ok, but I don't know that it would convert anyone to atheism. I preferred Sam Harris's The End of Faith and Chris Hitchens's God Is Not Great. Dawkins is better, in my opinion, when he sticks to biology.

Edited to add: Of course, all three stand on the shoulders of Bertrand Russell, whose Why I Am not a Christian is still the best defense of atheism/attack on Christianity that I have read.

[_just me]

Not odd at all. When I stopped believing in a literal deity is was very scary for a couple of days. If you think you may stop believing in a deity, I believe that could be very scary. At least, while you acclimate to it.

[_Buffalo]

So, yesterday I bought this book in iTunes. It was an odd thing. I looked it up, read the summary, I have looked at this book at the book stores. But I have been reluctant to buy such a book. I feel like I would, and now am, maybe taking a step off a precipice that I do not want to take. Or maybe I fear it. I have read articles and listened to podcasts by atheists that defend or promote their positions. But I have never read a book along these lines and I understand Dawkins is pretty strident.

Ah well. I think it only fair. I have taken a critical look at Mormonism. I have taken a critical look at Christianity. Both have some major problems, I think, in their founding claims. But I have not rejected either totally. I am about to go over to the dark side by reading such a book?

Is it odd that I seem so worried about this? I feel odd and strange about this.

Either you will find the arguments convincing or not. But do so based on their reasoning, not an ingrained fear of that position. Either the argument is good or it isn't.

The first time it occurred to me there might not be a God, I got scared too. I got over it.

[_Aristotle Smith]

So, yesterday I bought this book in iTunes. It was an odd thing. I looked it up, read the summary, I have looked at this book at the book stores. But I have been reluctant to buy such a book. I feel like I would, and now am, maybe taking a step off a precipice that I do not want to take. Or maybe I fear it. I have read articles and listened to podcasts by atheists that defend or promote their positions. But I have never read a book along these lines and I understand Dawkins is pretty strident.

Ah well. I think it only fair. I have taken a critical look at Mormonism. I have taken a critical look at Christianity. Both have some major problems, I think, in their founding claims. But I have not rejected either totally. I am about to go over to the dark side by reading such a book?

Is it odd that I seem so worried about this? I feel odd and strange about this.

If you are going to investigate atheism, don't pussy foot around with namby pamby Nu Atheists. Read a real atheist, like Nietzsche.

[_Jason Bourne]

If you are going to investigate atheism, don't pussy foot around with namby pamby Nu Atheists. Read a real atheist, like Nietzsche.

can you recommend one of his books? Also I still owe it to myself to explore a couple of the books you recommended on Christian History. I have so much to read and so little time to do so. I should give up some of my movie watching time. Besides my biking that I do, which I will not sacrifice, that is the other place I could free up some time.

[_Hoops]

What's really scary is beginning as an atheist then becoming a Christian.

Going from Deism to Atheism is for sissies.

[_Jason Bourne]

What's really scary is beginning as an atheist then becoming a Christian

Why is that? Is this based on personal experience?

Going from Deism to Atheism is for sissies.

Maybe so. I have no plans to do so. But I never planned to go from deep seated TBM to a NOMinal TBM. I have been open to other Christian traditions as well as making my way as best I can as a NOMer which is my current choice. I have thought a lot about Catholicism and I like it. I do not think I could ever worship as an Evangelical, at least not like the fundamentalist types that I know though I have been fond of Calvary Chapel at times.

But I think I should look at what the atheists think as well.

But really why do you say going from Deism to Atheism is for sissies? I am really seriously interested in all respectful thoughts on this.

[_Sethbag]

I think Dawkins is thinking right about the concept of God, but the arguments in his book are susceptible to a defense which, unfortunately, practically all religious apologists have mastered: "that's not what I believe".

Religious ideas are as varied as the people who believe them, and it would probably be impossible to find two people of any religion who believed everything exactly the same way. Everyone's got their own slant, their own nuance, their own relative importance judgments, and so forth. So religionists will read Dawkins' book and simply wave off his arguments by stating that Dawkins is attacking a belief or a claim that is different, whether greatly or subtly, from what they believe, and therefore has nothing to do with them. They shrug it off like water off a duck's back.

I agree with others that some of the other authors do a better job at leveling attacks at, say, the idea of gods, or the religious epistemology, rather than specific claims or beliefs, and thus are harder to dodge.

Jason, just remember very specific claims or teachings of Mormon prophets, then remember the science or modern-day social views or whatever that blow these teachings out of the water, and then remember the Internet Mormons, or apologists, or NOMs or whatever, saying "well that's fine but I don't believe that, so this attack is irrelevent to me", and you will have a pretty good idea of the ultimate impact of Dawkins' book on true believers.

[_Ceeboo]

I have thought a lot about Catholicism and I like it.

Brilliant! :)

But I think I should look at what the atheists think as well.

That's a huge assumption. :)

Peace and Merry Christmas,
Ceeboo