No, this is what I don't see him doing. I want to hear how he explains how athiesm is solidly grounded in logic more than theism (as opposed to religion). All I see him talking about is social rammifications of religion
Then you didn't read the other sections. As you've stated already.
You misunderstand. I don't mean to say intelligent design doesn't have religious roots, it pretty clearly does. I mean to say that intelligent design is not required to support any particular religion. It's just a new way to fill-in the scientific God-gaps. Proving intelligent design wrong does not quid pro quo proove all of religion wrong.
Intelligent design is being used as proof of the existence of God. It is one of many fallacious arguments that Dawkins tackles.
Christianity has it's roots in the Bible. Buddhism doesn't. Judaism doesn't. None of the eastern religions do. I'm not interested in the Christian God. He has too many characteristics that need to be taken entirely on faith. I'm only interested in talking about the concept of a god. He's not instigating a debate on theology; he's instigating a debate on Christianity. How does any of this disprove gaia, or any of the other new age earth gods that have a bigger section in the bookstore than philosphy? Is he writing a book about athiesm or a book that's just anti-christian. Theres more to athiesm than not beliving in Jehovah.
Sure, it's not believing any of the mystical stuff. Dawkins concentrates on Christianity and dabbles a bit in Islam and Judaism, but explains that the arguments are all pretty much the same. They are.
The existence of a supernatural infinite being or force is the only thing I want to discuss.
Fine. So far as any empiracle and scientific data exists, there is no God. According to the multitude of religions with different definitions of who God is, not even religions agree on the exact nature of their fictiticious God. Since nearly every religion defines God in their own way, they have already discounted hundreds if not thousands of alternate gods as not existing.
What is your proof for the existence of God?
The old guy with the beard. Jesus's ressurection. Reincarnation. The worth of the church. These are all good arguments but they do not affect the existence of a supernatural infinite being or force, because all any of them are are theories based on that existence.
Exactly. Except they aren't theories. They are stories. Theories use facts, religion doesn't.
I can't prove the truth or falsity of a story that was thought up thousands of years ago. There are verifiable inaccuracies, though.
So if there is no society does that mean that there is no right and wrong? In Robinson Curusoe he taught Friday that cannibalism was wrong. Was he wrong to do so? Should he have just adapted to the rights and wrongs set by that society? In the wasteland a lone man happens upon a young woman in a cabin. There is no society. What's best for that man would be to rape and kill the woman and take her stuff. Theres no society to deem it wrong. You happen upon a child drowning. Is it right to let him drown in the wilderness, but not in park? I just don't see how that works, maybe if you could explain it better to me.
Again, you misunderstand. It isn't what a society believes, it's what is good for the society. By altering our behavior, we improve society. Our society shapes our members, and our opinions. There is right and wrong, but only in the context of whether it is good or bad for society.
I think it's wrong because it treats an person as nothing more than a means, when by nature any person is more than a means. Prostitution would be equally wrong if I grew up a hermit, and then just happened upon a prostitute.
Do you have the same opinion of professional atheletes or construction workers who use their bodies to perform physical duties for money? Is it because of the sex? Should sex be illegal?
Lawful and unlawful are determined by society.
No, that's government. Society is a circle of friends, a family, a city, a government or a world. We are all members of a multitude of societies.
We don't have to prove he exists, we only have to prove that the possiblity he exists exists.
The absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense.
Yeah, but the absence of evidence does seem like a good reason not to create arbitrary rules for following the thing that may or may not exist. Or to follow archaic rules of behavior that are only enforced because the were created as rules for following this thing that may or may not exist.
As I've said - repeatedly - there are few atheists that will say there is absolutely no possibility that God exists. Atheists are just pretty sure it doesn't, and also believe that all organized religions are wrong.
Thats really their own fault for allowing themselves to be blind. Its not religion that confines them, its them who allow themselves to be confined by religion.
But religion confines belief. You HAVE to believe certain things to be a part of any organized religion. If you don't you are either publicly or secretly not part of it.
I guess I don't put as much stock in what society, religion, or anyone else says as athiests do. I try to make my own educated decisions on things, especially the nature of right and wrong. Making right and wrong entirely dependant on religion or on society just seems foolhearty to me.
The criteria you personally base right and wrong on is your business. His remarks (and mine) are toward what a society does to enable people to find their own path in life.
Does he address the various good deeds performed by any religious group? I've only seen you address the negative ones. Erecting shelters for the homeless is good in society. Is it his opinion that these good deeds are so far outweighed by the mistakes that they should be ignored?
He does address them, and understands that these are good things. He writes that he is not at all certain that these few things that are good outweigh the overall negatives. He also notes correctly that some of these endeavors are not done for altruistic reasons, but to convert people when they're at their lowest ebb...though I'm not certain he covers that in "The God Delusion".
I guess postmodernism just doesn't make logical sense to me, regardless of how it's tied to religion
Whatever that means. I actually think that you probably agree with a large portion of the book, but reject the conclusions on mostly emotional grounds. Which is perfectly legitimate, as we all have emotional reactions to things or we wouldn't be human.
You also see a defense of the atheistic viewpoint as an automatic attack on religion. Though Dawkins DOES attack religion for the harm it has done and the restricted thinking it encourages, the atheistic viewpoint does not need to tear down religion to be compelling.
I just thought of an analogy. In the roadrunner cartoons, there's that scene where the roadrunner is being chased by the coyote. They approach a rock with a tunnel painted on it and the roadrunner goes right into the painting.
Religious folk are the roadrunner, exploring areas that are completely imaginary - or at least based only on personal perceptions.
But the atheist isn't the coyote. We aren't banging our heads on a painted rock. We just stopped short of jumping into your impossible painting of belief.
Now, if we lived in a cartoon world, religion might be a rational belief... :)