Sethbag wrote: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.
Maybe I should have asked for recommendations before I bought the book. But it was only $9 and I used some a a $40 gift card that my kids gave me for my birthday.
I think your points are valid especially they one about the apologetic tactics.
Aristotle Smith wrote: 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.
I was making a joke more than anything. I don't know if there is an easy single book from Nietzsche that gives the full flavor of Nietzsche. If I had to pick one it would be "On the Genealogy of Morals." But even then, if you don't really know why Nietzsche wrote it and what he was responding to, it may end up being more of a WTF? than anything else.
If I had to make one main critique of the Nu Atheists it would be that they seem to be content to live in the afterglow of a Christian society, while supposing that the atheism they suggest can maintain that afterglow indefinitely.
In any case, that's a thread derail. And like I said, my comment was more of a joke than a serious reply.
Aristotle Smith wrote: I was making a joke more than anything. I don't know if there is an easy single book from Nietzsche that gives the full flavor of Nietzsche. If I had to pick one it would be "On the Genealogy of Morals." But even then, if you don't really know why Nietzsche wrote it and what he was responding to, it may end up being more of a WTF? than anything else.
If I had to make one main critique of the Nu Atheists it would be that they seem to be content to live in the afterglow of a Christian society, while supposing that the atheism they suggest can maintain that afterglow indefinitely.
In any case, that's a thread derail. And like I said, my comment was more of a joke than a serious reply.
Could you expand on that thought?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Do people think they are somehow being clever when they misspell "new" in the ignorant term "new atheism?" Is this what passes for humor or intellectualism? Is it supposed to be disparaging?
Just how idiotic do you have to be to think that's funny/special/clever?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Jason Bourne wrote:Is it odd that I seem so worried about this? I feel odd and strange about this.
Absolutely not. My shift in religious thought from believer to atheist was a depression-filled 3+ years of sadness, anger, despair, and many odd feelings.
Edit: I haven't read the God Delusion yet. I became an atheist by steadily attending religious services for 18+ years. Also I read a bit of Nietzsche.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
Jason, with all that said, I did like the book. One cool thing about Dawkins is that he and his wife Lala Ward do the narrations to his own audio books, and if you like the sort of posh RP English that they speak, it's an enjoyable listen.
Most (edit: ok, about half) of the books I've "read" from Dawkins are actually audio books that I downloaded from Audible.com, because I spend a lot of time exercising and driving in my car and so have a lot of time for audio book and podcast listening. I originally presumed that I wouldn't like audio books, because I would have a harder time following what was said than if I had the words right there in front of me, but that hasn't actually been the case.
by the way, this reminds me of a linguistic quandary I've thought about before. If you listen to an audio book, how does one refer to consuming this content? We still talk about authors writing books, and when we consume these books we say we read them, because we were talking about the physical act of reading printed words on a page. We talk metaphorically about reading authors too, like "I've read a lot of Dawkins" or whatever. Well, what do we say about a "book" when we've listened to the audio book form of it? Do we say we listened to the book? We heard the book? I've both read and listened to a lot of Dawkins?
My favorite book of recent years, Anathem by Neal Stephenson, I've read twice in hard copy (in English) and listened to the audio book five times. I've recently started the German translation of the hard copy, purchased through Amazon.de. Can I say I've "read" the book seven times? Obviously we're at an inflection point in our literary history, where the old verbiage no longer suffices. I wonder how we will refer to this stuff in the future.
Anyhow Jason, I hope you enjoy listening to Dawkins. ;-)
Last edited by Anonymous on Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Just checked in quickly and have not read the entire thread, but I do have one suggestion if you have decided to read work on religion and God by non-believing authors.
That suggestion is to start with Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. This book is short, sweet, and gets the job done quite nicely.
It was written specifically in response to American Evangelicals who bombard Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, and others with questions and hate mail each time one of them publishes a new book.
IMHO, this book should be required reading for graduation from high school.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
While I think Dawkins’ book fails at providing a decent challenge to Theism, this is an important book to read because of it’s influence in the atheist/theist discourse. If you understand Dawkins’ book, you’ll understand a lot of atheists as well.
Some Schmo wrote:Do people think they are somehow being clever when they misspell "new" in the ignorant term "new atheism?" Is this what passes for humor or intellectualism? Is it supposed to be disparaging?
Just how idiotic do you have to be to think that's funny/special/clever?
This from the board whose posters regularly place under scruitiny the work and behavior of "Mopologists". Come on, Schmo. Be a bit more self honest, okay?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb